homebuilt safety

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.

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.

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.

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

Somewhere, a long time ago, I was told the number one problem that
occures with homebuilts is fuel system related.
How true that is today, I do not know.
Nowadays, the aircraft are faster and the pilots less experienced.

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

Landing speeds are a big driver for the amount of injury. I think that the
FAA has a lot of data on this. Can't think of a reference off-hand, but you
can search the NTSB site. But anyway, here's the math: KE = (1/2)mv^2. The
basic conclusion is that accidents occuring at lower landing speeds do less
damage. This was a driver for the design of the RV series aircraft. If you
want safety, get something with STOL capability, make sure there's nothing
in the cockpit that's going to smack you in the back of the head if you
screw up, then practice, practice, practice (with an instructor until you
feel confident).....then practice some more. Avoid low-level aerobatics
until you're a really ****-hot pilot.

You really need to forget about structural protection in a home-built. The
key is to prevent (by flight procedure, pilot skill and knowledge, and by
appropriate vehicle design) accidents from happening in the first place.

Pete
[RV-8A in the planning stages....new shop under construction]

"anonymous coward" wrote in message
news
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

On Sat, 15 May 2004 15:14:41 +0000, Pete Schaefer wrote:

Landing speeds are a big driver for the amount of injury. I think that the
FAA has a lot of data on this. Can't think of a reference off-hand, but you
can search the NTSB site. But anyway, here's the math: KE = (1/2)mv^2. The
basic conclusion is that accidents occuring at lower landing speeds do less
damage. This was a driver for the design of the RV series aircraft. If you
want safety, get something with STOL capability, make sure there's nothing
in the cockpit that's going to smack you in the back of the head if you
screw up, then practice, practice, practice (with an instructor until you
feel confident).....then practice some more. Avoid low-level aerobatics
until you're a really ****-hot pilot.

I like the look of the IBIS (http://www.junqua-aircraft.com/) and I'd
prefer to build in wood. But the more I read, the less good an idea the
Ibis seems (fast landing speeds - only a few complete, so perhaps more
prone to 'bugs' than established designs such as the LongEZ and friends).

I feel more and more drawn towards the idea of building a wooden 3-axis
microlight - some of them seem to have quite short build times, and as you
say, slow landing speeds have got to be a good thing.

You really need to forget about structural protection in a home-built. The
key is to prevent (by flight procedure, pilot skill and knowledge, and by
appropriate vehicle design) accidents from happening in the first place.

I hope I don't seem paranoid, but assuming I'm likely to be flying for 50
years, even accident rates down in the low percents seem quite alarming.

Always grateful for advice,

AC


Pete
[RV-8A in the planning stages....new shop under construction]

"anonymous coward" wrote in message
news
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

On Sun, 16 May 2004 16:42:03 +0100, anonymous coward
wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2004 15:14:41 +0000, Pete Schaefer wrote:

Landing speeds are a big driver for the amount of injury. I think that the
FAA has a lot of data on this. Can't think of a reference off-hand, but you


I like the look of the IBIS (http://www.junqua-aircraft.com/) and I'd
prefer to build in wood. But the more I read, the less good an idea the
Ibis seems (fast landing speeds - only a few complete, so perhaps more
prone to 'bugs' than established designs such as the LongEZ and friends).

china plate (mate) if you want a very good economical wood design then
the Corby Starlet has a lot to offer. it is aerobatic to 4g. has
something like 33 years of safe proven use. its a design that has
never had an AD issued for it. the owners I know just love them.
very few have ever been pranged.

recommended engine is a jabiru 2200cc. delivers about 11litres per
hour fuel burn and can see the starlet to Vne in level flight.

btw it is a real aeronautical engineer designed aeroplane.
plans are about $aus200. 'bout $US150.

do a web search for "Corby Starlet"

Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 16 May 2004 16:42:03 +0100, anonymous coward
wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2004 15:14:41 +0000, Pete Schaefer wrote:

Landing speeds are a big driver for the amount of injury. I think that the
FAA has a lot of data on this. Can't think of a reference off-hand, but you


I like the look of the IBIS (http://www.junqua-aircraft.com/) and I'd
prefer to build in wood. But the more I read, the less good an idea the
Ibis seems (fast landing speeds - only a few complete, so perhaps more
prone to 'bugs' than established designs such as the LongEZ and friends).

china plate (mate) if you want a very good economical wood design then
the Corby Starlet has a lot to offer. it is aerobatic to 4g. has
something like 33 years of safe proven use. its a design that has
never had an AD issued for it. the owners I know just love them.
very few have ever been pranged.

recommended engine is a jabiru 2200cc. delivers about 11litres per
hour fuel burn and can see the starlet to Vne in level flight.

btw it is a real aeronautical engineer designed aeroplane.
plans are about $aus200. 'bout $US150.

do a web search for "Corby Starlet"

Stealth Pilot

Hey, Stealth, I own N45BM, the first Corby Starlet to fly in the US.
Bernardo

On 21 May 2004 22:24:27 -0700, (Bernardo Melendez.
Jr.) wrote:


I like the look of the IBIS (http://www.junqua-aircraft.com/) and I'd
prefer to build in wood. But the more I read, the less good an idea the
Ibis seems (fast landing speeds - only a few complete, so perhaps more
prone to 'bugs' than established designs such as the LongEZ and friends).

china plate (mate) if you want a very good economical wood design then
the Corby Starlet has a lot to offer. it is aerobatic to 4g. has
something like 33 years of safe proven use. its a design that has
never had an AD issued for it. the owners I know just love them.
very few have ever been pranged.

recommended engine is a jabiru 2200cc. delivers about 11litres per
hour fuel burn and can see the starlet to Vne in level flight.

btw it is a real aeronautical engineer designed aeroplane.
plans are about $aus200. 'bout $US150.

do a web search for "Corby Starlet"

Stealth Pilot

Hey, Stealth, I own N45BM, the first Corby Starlet to fly in the US.
Bernardo

I tip my hat to you.
....and I notice that you havent felt the need to move on from it.
what do you think of them?

Stealth Pilot

anonymous coward wrote in message e...

I feel more and more drawn towards the idea of building a wooden 3-axis
microlight - some of them seem to have quite short build times, and as you
say, slow landing speeds have got to be a good thing.

Have a look at the Evans VP-1 "Volkplane" or the Bowers "FlyBaby".
The VP is simpler, but the FB has a better look IMO. Both designs
date from the 60's and have scores of examples flying with thousands
of hours accumulated. Both have active builder/pilot groups on Yahoo.
Ron Wanntaja maintains an excellent website at www.bowersflybaby.com

Ditto the other comments in this thread - in any aircraft the
component most susceptible to catastrophic failure is the nut behind
the stick.

Good luck to you!

--Corrie, gettin' ready to cut wood for a FlyBaby

I hope I don't seem paranoid, but assuming I'm likely to be flying for 50
years, even accident rates down in the low percents seem quite alarming.


Assuming you plan on driving or even walking across a roadway in the same 50
years, accident rates are even more alarming.