NTSB report into home builds

[maxred]

The NTSB report on home builds has been released and concludes that amateur home builds in the USA have a 3-4 times worse safety record than other types of GA flying.

16 safety recommendations have been issued.

http://www.avweb.com/other/NTSB-EAB-0512.mp3

[peterh337]

About the same as here then... I bet.

[fernytickles]

Really good discussion on this subject on Vans AirForce forum

NTSB to release safety study on experimentals - VAF Forums

[Steve N]

About the same as here then... I bet.

You would lose your bet Peter.
The reason CAA removed restrictions on overflight of built up areas from UK permit aircraft about 4 years ago was because they found no evidence of increased risk here.

[A and C]

The biggest problem with home builds is the variable quality of the work, most aircraft that I am called to inspect are very well built and maintained to a high standard, however there are a few that are not.

This brings to mind the import from the USA were the strobe lighting harness had been routed through the fuel tank in a flexible hose that was leaking.

It is no wonder that the FAA are looking to improve standards, the LAA are working on this as well, I happen to think that the LAA has just about got the balance correct my only slight issue is that they don't maintain a common modification data base that allows owners to use already approved modifications without going through the whole modification process.

[maxred]

I found the survey results interesting and probably confirming the perception, which was not really based on any qualitative input.

I am off to Oshkosh shortly, the home of the experimental type, and each year I witness guys doing and making things that as Silvaire highlighted is the bedrock of possibly where we are now.

Some of the recommends are worry some, particularly the points of engine performance and fuel systems, because the very nature of EXPERIMENTAL, is precisely that.

The land of the free, may just be becoming a little less so.

[Genghis the Engineer]

From EAA yesterday:

"Both EAA and the NTSB know that we must improve the accident record of amateur-built aircraft," said EAA President Rod Hightower on Tuesday evening, in a video response to the safety board's report released earlier that day. However, he said, some of the NTSB's recommendations to the FAA, which could result in more regulations, are "worrisome." For example, the NTSB wants new regulations for testing engine performance and for documenting flight tests in amateur-built aircraft. "At EAA, we do not believe that more regulation is the answer ... Education, versus new regulation, is a better solution," Hightower said.

The four recommendations the NTSB aimed at EAA would expand on programs that are already in place, Hightower said. EAA's Homebuilt Aircraft Council will continue to study the recommendations for what effect they may have on the design, building and certification of amateur-built aircraft. "Any action must ensure that the freedom to participate in the amateur-built aircraft community does not create additional burdens or hurdles," EAA said in its news release.

I agree that Peter would lose his bet - the UK and US are chalk and cheese where homebuilts are concerns.


In the UK we have a (relatively) light touch system for approval (not certification) of kit and plans built aircraft, with a choice of BMAA, LAA or CAA for approval depending upon what it is.

The accident rate in Britain for amateur built aeroplanes used to be higher than for certified aeroplanes, but the margin was much smaller than the US, kept closing and has bcome statistically insignificant between all of the various fixed wing classes of light and microlight aeroplanes in the UK over the last decade or so.

Hence we now can fly PtF aeroplanes over built up areas, and the next and obvious stage will be to revisit the long abandoned aspiration for IMC and night in UK registered PtF aeroplanes in UK airspace.

The fact is, the US is finally realising that the British were right, although somehow I doubt that they'll ever express it in those terms.


The reason for more and more interesting experimentation in the USA, in my opinion, has nothing to do with their degregulated category - it down to a fair better culture of experimentation, and in practical engineering, a better educated population compared to a British culture which educates engineers, but is obsessed with (a) being an employee subject to other people's bright ideas, and (b) not taking risks of failure.

The good designers in the US, the people producing the really interesting experimental designs, would still thrive in the British environment.

In my opinion

G

[this is my username]

Can't really agree with you on that one, Genghis. You only have to look at the microlight / gyroplane manufacturers in Europe vs the UK to see the impact of regulation on innovation.

In (most of) Europe if a manufacturer wants to build a new aircraft in the microlight category they build it and fly it. They can then experiment and change the design as they see fit to get the characteristics they want. Once that is done they go through the paperwork process (if any) to get the aircraft approved. As a result development cycles are (relatively) rapid and (relatively) low cost.

In the UK you need a design approval and a production approval (£££ and time). The design has to be approved (£££ and time) and hoops jumped through before it can be flown. Once you have flown it any changes have to be redesigned and re-approved (you can't just wheel it back in to the hangar, tinker, then wheel it back out again and see if that worked).

The result? The cost and timescales for innovating in the UK are so high relative to (most of) the rest of Europe and the US that few bother - they just find something else to do (or move).

The upside is that, as you described, the accident rates on UK permit aircraft are a good deal lower than on the US Experimental fleet.

[Genghis the Engineer]

In the UK you need a design approval and a production approval (£££ and time). The design has to be approved (£££ and time) and hoops jumped through before it can be flown. Once you have flown it any changes have to be redesigned and re-approved (you can't just wheel it back in to the hangar, tinker, then wheel it back out again and see if that worked).

I know the system, I'm a CAA design signatory,a BMAA Senior Inspector, and a BMAA and LAA Test Pilot. The people who use these excuses not to innovate are generally those without the skills to generate good products anyhow.

The costs to be paid through BMAA or LAA are pretty trivial, no DOA/POA is required, and ultimately it comes down to the time and effort required of the designer to get it right.

At the certified end it is usually different in that the sheer costs of getting kit certified in Europe are far higher than in the USA with its very elegant DER system, but this thread was about homebuilts. But even then, I recently looked to two changes to my vintage / UK-reg / CofA aeroplane.

(1) Fitting an uncertified oil cooler; this took my effort, purchase of the parts, and once I'd sumbitted a report to CAA, a charge of £61.
(2) Switching from AVGAS to 91UL; this I managed to do on a paperwork exercise and has cost nothing.

Ultimately what I needed here was to be competent, not any deregulation.

Designing an aeroplane is much harder, and requires different skills, to flying one. But, many people do not recognise that, and whilst they accept that they need formal training and assessment to fly, somehow don't believe that this should apply to designing and building.

G

[cockney steve]

Ah, yes, G....but how much would an ordinary punter without your skillset, pay for the benefit of your expertise.

I'd guess that you aren't a one-man charity ,nor are you on national minimum wage.

[this is my username]

Good job you found yourself a job as an engineer Genghis and not as a diplomat!

On behalf of those of us who work in sport aviation in the UK rather than playing at it I'm glad to hear that you think we are just too dumb and lazy to innovate rather than being held back by the dead hand of regulation!

[Genghis the Engineer]

No I don't usually do engineering for free, and I don't teach flying for nothing either (unless it's within one of my syndicates, when I do both for nothing). Equally I'm not a diplomat - after all, what's the benefit in telling people with no formal training that they'll be fine designing an aeroplane without getting any formal training or oversight. You'd call me utterly irresponsible for saying you should teach yourself to fly. And what's the difference between paying an engineer (who put years and a lot of money into his education and training) to help with an aircraft design, and paying an instructor (who did the same) to teach you how to fly it?

But LAA and BMAA do have lists of members who'll help other members with their projects. And many of us (I have helped with both) will do that sort of thing for a lot less than the day job and sometimes for free, particularly if there's a chance to get some flying in an interesting aeroplane out of it.

Both also run occasional courses on how to do certification engineering. And then there are things like OU modules available for people who need skills like stress analysis or aerodynamics: or even a full engineering degree. The educational routes are there for those who choose to take them.

G

N.B. I worked full time in sport aviation in the UK for nearly 9 years. I just happen to do something different as my main day job now - but that does include GA teaching and safety research. I have put my money where my mouth is regularly for a lot of years. But no, I've never been a diplomat.

[Pilot DAR]

but how much would an ordinary punter without your skillset, pay for the benefit of your expertise

My guess would be a heck of a lot less than the cost to them to gain that skill set, that fast, with their own self study, when the job needs to stay on schedule! Probably money per hour, the punter would think nothing of paying their dentist even more than the aircraft expert!

[maxred]

The root of course in all of this is that from experimentation, leads innovation. Without the guy at the outset, that pushed the edge, then we possibly would not be where we are now. Of course this must be acquired within a framework of safety/risk, however, here is the dilemma. It was that the USA led the way in this, and the EUropeans regulated, to the extent that full on regulation, by it's nature, stifles risk, and risk taking, the penalty is punishment. Over regulation.

The EAA has recognised this, and encourages education, with controlled regulation. This must be the way. The fear is that this may be the thin edge of the wedge as far as the US is concerned, and that would be a shame. I also think the statistics may be flawed, accident rate US/the rest. The culture encouraged the innovator, and from this would obviously come a greater number of incidents.

[Pilot DAR]

My opinion, and having not read the referenced NTSB report is that amateur built aircraft possibly have a greater accident rate because of a combination of factors. With many exceptions, amateur built aircraft are the labour of love for a low time/new pilot, and that person's life goes into the aircraft building for extended periods, to the exclusion of piloting skill development/maintenance. Then the low time pilot gets in the newly built aircraft, and starts to work out the bugs. That is a higher risk [than the recently experienced pilot flying the club C-172/PA- 28] no matter how you look at it.

Yes, we must encourage the experimenters and enthusiasts, and allow them freedom to do their thing. We can only hope that they avail themselves of the wealth of knowledge and experience out there. For the most part, it's been done before, someone has already learned how.

[peterh337]

There is some amazing stuff going on under the US Experimental regime, which I can't see being allowed here in Europe.

Take for example the Epic Dynasty - a pressurised turboprop with amazing performance.

Or the Lancair pressurised turboprop.

Many people have looked at whether they can bring such stuff over here but they usually find it impossible.

[peterh337]

I have been criticised for saying this but I have read an awful lot of AAIB reports over the years where some "homebuilt" had broken up in flight.

On certified types, one heard of that only in very rare cases e.g. flight into a TS, loss of control resulting in Vne+ etc, or odd ones like that Robin which hit a bale and the wing came off on a later flight.

[patowalker]

I have read an awful lot of AAIB reports over the years where some "homebuilt" had broken up in flight.

Talk about rapid depreciation: in one sentence "an awful lot" drops to "some".

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by pboyall

Am I the only one who looked at it and thought that it was right for there to be a higher accident rate with home-build "Experimental" compared with certified?

Yes it is, but not a factor of 4 surely?

Originally Posted by pboyall

However, it's undeniable that we do not have a Vans or a Sonex in the UK. Nor do we have an Evektor or an Ikarus.

A quick check on G-INFO shows 398 Vans, 5 Sonex, 3 Evektors and 146 Ikarus.

Or if you mean that we don’t have equivalent British companies, you presumably don’t count any of the following British designs as revelant?:

SLA 100 – which is roughly equivalent to the Ikarus products.

Europa.

Reality Escapade, or it’s smaller sister the single seat Escapade Kid.

Aviation Enterprises Magnum, which is substantially tested and certified and has been looking for production backing for years, but that's a problem with business backing, not aeronautics.

CTSW (admittedly developed from a German design, but developed, tested and certified in the UK, by an all-British team).

Thruster T600

All the Mike Whittaker designs, numerous of which are still being built and supported.

And if we get onto Flexwings of-course, there are huge numbers of high tech British aircraft in production including the QuikR, GT450, PulsR (which admittedly isn’t certified yet, but personally I’m drooling over since I saw the prototype fly into Cranfield a couple of months ago), AV8R, EclipseR, Dragonfly

So, apart from all of those British, in-production, innovative, light and microlight aeroplanes (okay, the Magnum’s not in production, and the CT started out foreign), you’re probably right – nobody in the UK manages to innovate in light aircraft design.

Well apart from the Lynden Mk.2, Europa MotorGlider, Mole Mite, Skylark, Trail and Wright flyer replica shown on LAA’s website as ongoing, and a handful of things doubtless going through the BMAA (although they don’t publish a list).

Or at the Gyroplane end, nobody except for Rotorsport and Merlin.

No, you’re probably right, no real development of British light aeroplanes, and no real innovators here, plus impossible to certify new types here. Or you don’t know what you’re talking about – one or the other.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by peterh337

I have been criticised for saying this but I have read an awful lot of AAIB reports over the years where some "homebuilt" had broken up in flight.

On certified types, one heard of that only in very rare cases e.g. flight into a TS, loss of control resulting in Vne+ etc, or odd ones like that Robin which hit a bale and the wing came off on a later flight.

Could you give references for those in-flight breakups, because I can only think of two in about 15 years - G-STYX in 2005 (which actually was a factory built microlight, albeit one that suffered a breakup due to poor maintenance practices) and G-BVNA in 1999, and if there are a lot more, I'm very embarrassed not to know about them.

G