OK, Luke, Here's More Numbers for You

" jls" wrote:
Furthermore, homebuilts have an enviable safety record,
!?!
Enviable by whom - Evel Knievel?
Let's have real numbers when discussing these things;
Indeed.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Check this out, Danny:

http://www.seqair.com/FlightTest/Kil...lYourself.html
Some people want to fly faster than that 130 mph Cessna of yours or in a
different or unique airplane, and they don't have the experience in the type
chosen for the purpose. I knew a doctor who killed himself in a Monnett Moni
because he didn't have any time in it; the flight was the aircraft's (and
his) first and last.

Check out the graph here too:

http://www.provide.net/~pratt1/ambuilt/faqhmblt.htm
Experimentals are here to stay. Their safety record, just as the safety
record of GA aircraft, always needs improving, but your comment is
irresponsible.
If you have any numbers other than sneering, please provide them.

Hope this helps.

" jls" wrote:
http://www.seqair.com/FlightTest/Kil...lYourself.html

From the article:
"Overall the safety record of homebuilt aircraft is not greatly
different from production aircraft."

The author provides no evidence. Where are the numbers?

Some people want to fly faster than that 130 mph Cessna of yours

That's a 155 mph Cessna, son.

[snip]

Check out the graph here too:

http://www.provide.net/~pratt1/ambuilt/faqhmblt.htm

What part of the graph has anything to say about the safety numbers of
homebuilts?

Experimentals are here to stay.

Really? Gosh!

[snip]

If you have any numbers other than sneering, please provide them.

Experimentals comprise 10.4% of the GA fleet
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1842322A but, according to the 2003 ASF
Nall report, historically produce 17% of the fatal accidents. From the
report:

"Comparison with Factory Aircraft:
In 2002, homebuilt airplanes were involved in 196 accidents. Of these,
60 fatal accidents resulted in 79 fatalities. Factory-built airplanes
in 2002 were involved in 1,276 accidents, of which 252 were fatal with
439 fatalities. Just over 30 percent of homebuilt aircraft accidents
resulted in fatalities, and 19.7 percent of the accidents in
factory-built airplanes were fatal. As in prior years, it appears that
there is a significantly higher risk of fatality in the event of an
accident in a homebuilt aircraft compared to a factory-built machine.
Although fatal homebuilt aircraft accidents decreased dramatically in
2000, they increased to 19.2 percent in 2002. Historically, homebuilt
aircraft are involved in approximately 17 percent of all fatal
accidents."

Hope this helps.

Ditto.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

" jls" wrote:
http://www.seqair.com/FlightTest/Kil...lYourself.html

From the article:
"Overall the safety record of homebuilt aircraft is not greatly
different from production aircraft."

The author provides no evidence. Where are the numbers?

Some people want to fly faster than that 130 mph Cessna of yours

That's a 155 mph Cessna, son.

[snip]

Check out the graph here too:

http://www.provide.net/~pratt1/ambuilt/faqhmblt.htm

What part of the graph has anything to say about the safety numbers of
homebuilts?

Experimentals are here to stay.

Really? Gosh!

[snip]

If you have any numbers other than sneering, please provide them.

Experimentals comprise 10.4% of the GA fleet
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1842322A but, according to the 2003 ASF
Nall report, historically produce 17% of the fatal accidents. From the
report:

"Comparison with Factory Aircraft:
In 2002, homebuilt airplanes were involved in 196 accidents. Of these,
60 fatal accidents resulted in 79 fatalities. Factory-built airplanes
in 2002 were involved in 1,276 accidents, of which 252 were fatal with
439 fatalities. Just over 30 percent of homebuilt aircraft accidents
resulted in fatalities, and 19.7 percent of the accidents in
factory-built airplanes were fatal. As in prior years, it appears that
there is a significantly higher risk of fatality in the event of an
accident in a homebuilt aircraft compared to a factory-built machine.
Although fatal homebuilt aircraft accidents decreased dramatically in
2000, they increased to 19.2 percent in 2002. Historically, homebuilt
aircraft are involved in approximately 17 percent of all fatal
accidents."

Hope this helps.

Ditto.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

In a previous article, "Dan Luke" said:
If you have any numbers other than sneering, please provide them.

Experimentals comprise 10.4% of the GA fleet
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1842322A but, according to the 2003 ASF
Nall report, historically produce 17% of the fatal accidents. From the
report:

The biggest weakness with the Nall report, and one which they admit in the
report itself, is that they don't have "per flight hour" figures. If home
builders are more likely to get out and fly their aircraft rather than let
them sit mouldering with weeds growing through the landing gear, than the
higher proportion of accidents means nothing. On the other hand, if the
non-experimentals get flown on long distance night IFR while the
experimentals get flown for local $100 hamburger runs, those figures might
be covering up a much worse accident rate.

We'll probably never really know the true answers, until somebody makes a
long term comprehensive study of hours flown and types of flying versus
accidents across the whole fleet.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Microsoft - Where quality is job 1.0.1

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 18:25:27 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

In a previous article, "Dan Luke" said:
If you have any numbers other than sneering, please provide them.

Experimentals comprise 10.4% of the GA fleet
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1842322A but, according to the 2003 ASF
Nall report, historically produce 17% of the fatal accidents. From the
report:

The biggest weakness with the Nall report, and one which they admit in the
report itself, is that they don't have "per flight hour" figures. If home
builders are more likely to get out and fly their aircraft rather than let
them sit mouldering with weeds growing through the landing gear, than the
higher proportion of accidents means nothing. On the other hand, if the
non-experimentals get flown on long distance night IFR while the
experimentals get flown for local $100 hamburger runs, those figures might
be covering up a much worse accident rate.

We'll probably never really know the true answers, until somebody makes a
long term comprehensive study of hours flown and types of flying versus
accidents across the whole fleet.

Ahem. KITPLANES magazine, October 2004.

Ron "self-plugging" Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

We'll probably never really know the true answers, until somebody
makes a long term comprehensive study of hours flown and types of
flying versus accidents across the whole fleet.

Ahem. KITPLANES magazine, October 2004.

How about a brief summary for those of us who don't subscribe? One
wouldn't expect a magazine of that title to be completely unbiased
about such a subject, but even biased information can be useful.
Jim Rosinski

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

We'll probably never really know the true answers, until somebody
makes a long term comprehensive study of hours flown and types of
flying versus accidents across the whole fleet.

Ahem. KITPLANES magazine, October 2004.

How about a brief summary for those of us who don't subscribe? One
wouldn't expect a magazine of that title to be completely unbiased
about such a subject, but even biased information can be useful.
Jim Rosinski

Jim Rosinski wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:


We'll probably never really know the true answers, until somebody
makes a long term comprehensive study of hours flown and types of
flying versus accidents across the whole fleet.

Ahem. KITPLANES magazine, October 2004.


How about a brief summary for those of us who don't subscribe? One
wouldn't expect a magazine of that title to be completely unbiased
about such a subject, but even biased information can be useful.
Jim Rosinski


The brief summary is that amateur built experimental airplanes are more
dangerous than their spam can counterparts.


Matt

Are you talking about your 172RG? Do they really cruise at 155 MPH? I
thought they cruised around 145 MPH. Is yours modified?

I'm asking because I'm looking to buy one.


"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

" jls" wrote:
http://www.seqair.com/FlightTest/Kil...lYourself.html

From the article:
"Overall the safety record of homebuilt aircraft is not greatly different
from production aircraft."

The author provides no evidence. Where are the numbers?

Some people want to fly faster than that 130 mph Cessna of yours

That's a 155 mph Cessna, son.

[snip]

Check out the graph here too:

http://www.provide.net/~pratt1/ambuilt/faqhmblt.htm

What part of the graph has anything to say about the safety numbers of
homebuilts?

Experimentals are here to stay.

Really? Gosh!

[snip]

If you have any numbers other than sneering, please provide them.

Experimentals comprise 10.4% of the GA fleet
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1842322A but, according to the 2003 ASF Nall
report, historically produce 17% of the fatal accidents. From the report:

"Comparison with Factory Aircraft:
In 2002, homebuilt airplanes were involved in 196 accidents. Of these, 60
fatal accidents resulted in 79 fatalities. Factory-built airplanes in
2002 were involved in 1,276 accidents, of which 252 were fatal with 439
fatalities. Just over 30 percent of homebuilt aircraft accidents resulted
in fatalities, and 19.7 percent of the accidents in factory-built
airplanes were fatal. As in prior years, it appears that there is a
significantly higher risk of fatality in the event of an accident in a
homebuilt aircraft compared to a factory-built machine. Although fatal
homebuilt aircraft accidents decreased dramatically in 2000, they
increased to 19.2 percent in 2002. Historically, homebuilt aircraft are
involved in approximately 17 percent of all fatal accidents."

Hope this helps.

Ditto.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

" wrote:

Are you talking about your 172RG? Do they really cruise at 155 MPH? I
thought they cruised around 145 MPH. Is yours modified?

According to Clarke's book, cruise for a 172RG at 75% power is 161 mph.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.