RV-10 vs SR 22 accident history

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,765
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Vans quality is very factory like but I doubt if they will ever sell completed RV10s due to US liability concerns.
I would argue that point. Certification DOES have a negative effect.

I think where BBerson is going with this is that IF Vans chose to (and legally could) simply start producing finished RV-10's they would be just as safe as any other similar aircraft produced, and cheaper too, because the FAA oversight and documentation requirements adds practically zero to the actual safety.
The merits of communicating via a few flying electrons...
I got BB's point, what I disagree with is that it's not a possibility, but a fact that certification does hinder safety, as compared to a manufacturer that does the right thing WRT safety, like Van's and several others.
We need to get the FAA, and every other CAA, out of the design and "certification" loop and restrict them to an oversight roll for these simple and well understood aircraft, like F37/LSA was before the FAA decided they needed to start pre-production "audits". The ARC ASTM process was originally intended to do this but much like "black aluminum think" tends to waste carbon "FAA / EASA think" has taken over the ASTM process.
Nice parallel.

Unfortunately, speaking from experience on both accounts, getting the "more rules, more enforcement" guys to be realistic is just as hard/impossible as to get people to think/design in composites...
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,972
Location
Rocky Mountains
Unfortunately, speaking from experience on both accounts, getting the "more rules, more enforcement" guys to be realistic is just as hard/impossible as to get people to think/design in composites...
The one advantage we have to work with this time is that they have agreed to use the ASTM process. ASTM is allegedly an independent entity with built in checks and balances that don't exist within the various regulating bodies. It's kind of like stepping into a cage of tigers to train them. It's better than being chased by them in the wild, but still not a fun or risk free undertaking.

Based on a recent e-mail it appears one of those tigers isn't to happy about being in the cage. :gig:
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
4,566
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The ASTM process with the RV12 was quite complex and anyone who has looked at what is involved with paperwork will know this, however it is a lot less work and money than the conventional certification process. It still involves total compliance on EVERY detail specified in the paperwork. A lot of RV12 guys wanted to change the panel or some minor details. You can't, just like a certified plane unless you move it out of the category.

Can the FAA/ ASTM be moved to change some of this? Maybe, but I doubt if it will be a quick process.

In the case of RV10s, we know from tens of thousands of flight hours now on the fleet that there are no big structural or handling showstoppers. Properly built and flown, it's at least as safe as any factory iron. Would the rules be revised for proven designs like this? What about new designs with no track record? Hard to have two sets of rules but power to anyone who wants to try to change things for the better here.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,765
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Any documents available?
Nothing I'm going to share publicly.

A 1st hand story from others where I suspect that you won't get an official or documented response either:
A composite manufacturer found out (after somebody did a thesis on their cockpit) that a few layers of small reinforcements would double the energy impact the cockpit could take. Certifying that would have required re-testing, so even future production doesn't have the much safer cockpit.

Getting certification for many safety devices for sailplanes (CS22) has proven to be unfeasible. There has been a lot of effort wasted in getting permission for airbrake restraint hooks (to avoid the airbrakes popping open fully during take-off), canopy hooks, NOAH. Notably the complete failure to add a parachute system to most gliders, given the extreme requirements for an STC. To the best of my knowledge (but that's nót 1st hand info), that's the same issue for a typical older Cessna etc.

Come to think of it; lookup what a big sailplane manufacturer's original quote was for a BRS-equipped sailplane and what the Sparrow Hawk carries. 3K for the Sparrow Hawk is peanuts, paying a dozen times more for a few paper stamps and nobody carries that safety feature anymore...
 

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
5,284
Location
Mojave, Ca
...In the case of RV10s, we know from tens of thousands of flight hours now on the fleet that there are no big structural or handling showstoppers. Properly built and flown, it's at least as safe as any factory iron. Would the rules be revised for proven designs like this? What about new designs with no track record? Hard to have two sets of rules but power to anyone who wants to try to change things for the better here...

Though I doubt it will ever happen, I've wondered what a "certified" RV-10 would look like. I'm sure there would be some changes... Just look at the significant differences between the Lancair ES and the resulting Columbia.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,274
Location
Port Townsend WA
Nothing I'm going to share publicly.
.
That won't help. I need a public study to use for future reference with conversations to ASTM or FAA.
The FAA has admitted a problem with approving safety items. Just yesterday, I received a new policy notice from the FAA that will allow approval of Angle of Attack indicators with less burdens.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,972
Location
Rocky Mountains
Would the rules be revised for proven designs like this? What about new designs with no track record?
There was some wording in one of the workgroups along the lines of: the first time manufacturers would have to accept a lot of FAA/CAA (Controlling Aviation Authority in ASTM speak) over-site. If all went smoothly second time only over critical items. Third time they are on the honor system. Haven't seen it in ballot yet. A company like Vans or Sonex would automatically be at level 2 with that particular standard. I've also seen at least one instance of using fleet history for part of the process. Nothing on that yet at ballot level either.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,765
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
That won't help. I need a public study to use for future reference with conversations to ASTM or FAA.
The FAA has admitted a problem with approving safety items. Just yesterday, I received a new policy notice from the FAA that will allow approval of Angle of Attack indicators with less burdens.
I'm afraid few people (if anybody) will give you that. Most people in the industry are cynical about any "relieve" of regulations, seeing more and more tightening regulations time and time again. I've talked over one of those attempts to "deregulate" in exhaustive details. The resulting regulation is stricter (!!!) as FAR/CS23...

If that's your take, openly criticizing the authorities that have absolutely everything in hand about the future of your company (and your employment), they'd be an utter fool to speak up in public.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,972
Location
Rocky Mountains
I received a new policy notice from the FAA that will allow approval of Angle of Attack indicators with less burdens.
That may be good enough for this argument. If they admit that regulation has actually decreased safety in this one instance, then they have already admitted that there is a problem with current regulation structure.

Side note: I've been a bit concerned about all this talk of certified planes in an Experimental forum. It's not directly relevant but our (Experimental) future is directly tied to the health of the general aviation industry. If it dies we loose our airspace shortly thereafter.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,972
Location
Rocky Mountains
they'd be an utter fool to speak up in public.
Not everyone on the ASTM group has that worry. It is very obvious that there are plenty of industry members that do fall into this category. It's all about power and "they" have the time and money to dominate, though maybe not control, the process.

Side note #2. I checked the ASTM bylaws and:

Anyone can make comments on pending ballots. They just have to go through the front door at ASTM rather than through the standards committee. Their comments will be forwarded and considered but are not binding.

Anyone is allowed to attend any public meeting of an ASTM committee without fee or reservation when standards are being discussed. Administrative meetings are closed.

All negative votes from ASTM members must be considered.

Any ASTM member can vote on any main committee ballot item.

Even non ASTM members can participate in task groups. The need for invitation is unclear to me.
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
10,091
Location
CT, USA
I'm afraid few people (if anybody) will give you that. Most people in the industry are cynical about any "relieve" of regulations, seeing more and more tightening regulations time and time again.
I'm cynical myself about some of the big players in the LSA business. Consider: LSA was widely touted as an inexpensive certification path for 2 seat ultralights and other light planes, opening up the industry. Instead we have the Cessna 162, which saved Cessna a bundle on certification, and other similarly priced aircraft... and a certification process that's still to expensive for small manufacturers to get into. I wonder how much of the more onerous LSA certification requirements is pushed by the big boys who can afford it, to keep the smaller guys out? There's an old adage about when two capitalists get together, the first thing they do is to get the government to pass regulations keeping the third guy out... I'm a firm believer in capitalism, but there's certainly some truth to that.

Regarding the Cirrus, they used to call Bonanzas the "fork tailed doctor killer." Low time (or low time per year) pilots in fast airplanes because they can afford them. I think the Cirrus has taken over that role.

Dana

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
 

tspear

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
1,011
Location
Outside Boston
A few random points.
-- The majority of the FAR Part 23 is a result of accidents. The goal was always to make planes "standard" as much as possible so a pilot can move from one plane to another with minimal training.
-- Further, each revision and certification process is designed to "prove" that the new plane is not suscepable to the problem the regulation was designed to prevent.
-- As knowledge and technology has changed there have been more then one solution to many of the problems presented historical accidents; but the process at the FAA was never designed to accommodate this new reality.
-- The LSA ATSM Specification was supposed to address this by focusing on goals and less on how the plane achieved them. I have not read the specification, but from what I have read there was a little to much influence by some agencies which resulted in a fair amount of how to meet the goal requirements being included in the specification.
-- Even if the FAA agrees to the ATSM standard, or even most of the suggestions of the ARC Part 23 rewrite (even if mandated by Congress) it will only go part way to getting rid of certification hassles. Any bit will help.

Then here is the fun question, will the FAA/CAA and ATSM learn from all the initial issues in the LSA market spin up?

Back to the original question about SR22 versus RV10. Based on the Nall Report, and every other analysis I have read the answer is largely unknowable once you have a hundred or so hours on the RV10. The vast majority of EA-AB accidents occur within the first 100 hundred hours, many associated with manufacturing issues.

Good luck trying to get an answer.

Tim
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
4,566
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
There was some wording in one of the workgroups along the lines of: the first time manufacturers would have to accept a lot of FAA/CAA (Controlling Aviation Authority in ASTM speak) over-site. If all went smoothly second time only over critical items. Third time they are on the honor system. Haven't seen it in ballot yet. A company like Vans or Sonex would automatically be at level 2 with that particular standard. I've also seen at least one instance of using fleet history for part of the process. Nothing on that yet at ballot level either.
This is the type of thing that is needed, hope it actually happens.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,274
Location
Port Townsend WA
Back to the original question about SR22 versus RV10. Based on the Nall Report, and every other analysis I have read the answer is largely unknowable once you have a hundred or so hours on the RV10. The vast majority of EA-AB accidents occur within the first 100 hundred hours, many associated with manufacturing issues.

Tim
Good point. The majority of issues is errors of assembly, not design. Since Van's probably complies with the Part 23 code, one way to improve assembly errors would be more factory oversight beyond 50%. Apparently that is the FAA plan for complex kits.

Hotwings- yes this a Homebuilt forum. The problem is that regulation has restricted my options for buying an affordable aviation quality engine (30-60hp). I am essentially forced to design my own and I don't think that is optimal. I know that 40 year old Limbach cited continued compliance burdens for the company's closure. (since sold to China, I think)
How can a new company even begin?
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,972
Location
Rocky Mountains
I'm cynical myself about some of the big players in the LSA business. Consider: LSA was widely touted as an inexpensive certification << >> and a certification process that's still to expensive for small manufacturers to get into.
Maybe I'm just too close to this but I've never though of the ASTM standard for LSA's as being too expensive. There is very little in there that I wouldn't do on my own or expect a kit maker to do voluntarily.

If it weren't for the copyright protection I'd post a copy of the ASTM F37 standards for all to see. There are some that think (as I do) any standard that is incorporated into public law should not be subject to copyright.

House Subcommittee Airs Debate Over
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,972
Location
Rocky Mountains
I know that 40 year old Limbach cited continued compliance burdens for the company's closure.
That has to be paperwork related, not the actual testing/proving of the engines. CS-22 is even less intensive than ASTM F37 when it comes to engine certification for the Limbach. Just more justification to get the bureaucrats out of the soup.
 

tspear

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
1,011
Location
Outside Boston
Maybe I'm just too close to this but I've never though of the ASTM standard for LSA's as being too expensive. There is very little in there that I wouldn't do on my own or expect a kit maker to do voluntarily.

If it weren't for the copyright protection I'd post a copy of the ASTM F37 standards for all to see. There are some that think (as I do) any standard that is incorporated into public law should not be subject to copyright.

House Subcommittee Airs Debate Over
This is a catch 22 situation. ATSM, ISO and many other standard bodies are funded by membership fees combined with the selling of the documents. If instead if the documents are giving away for free, there is almost no incentive for people to be members. Then were does the funding come from? Do you really want the Federal government funding it? What happens if the organization disagrees with the FAA, the FAA Secretary redirects some funding, or someone in Congress gets pissed....

Tim
 

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,825
Location
Seattle, WA
Back to the original question about SR22 versus RV10. Based on the Nall Report, and every other analysis I have read the answer is largely unknowable once you have a hundred or so hours on the RV10. The vast majority of EA-AB accidents occur within the first 100 hundred hours, many associated with manufacturing issues.
Well, based on my 1998-2012 database, a little over 1/3rd (36%) of homebuilt accidents occur in the first 100 hours.

hours at accident.jpg

About 27% of all homebuilt accidents are triggered by mechanical issues. Looking at Cessna 172s and the most common fixed-gear versions of the PA-28 from 2001-2010, 7.5% of the 172 accidents and 10.3% of the Piper accidents had mechanical issues at heart.

Haven't run a similar look at the Cirrus.

Ron Wanttaja
 

tspear

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
1,011
Location
Outside Boston
Well, based on my 1998-2012 database, a little over 1/3rd (36%) of homebuilt accidents occur in the first 100 hours.

View attachment 30506

About 27% of all homebuilt accidents are triggered by mechanical issues. Looking at Cessna 172s and the most common fixed-gear versions of the PA-28 from 2001-2010, 7.5% of the 172 accidents and 10.3% of the Piper accidents had mechanical issues at heart.

Haven't run a similar look at the Cirrus.

Ron Wanttaja
Ron,

That is an interesting data point.
Either my memory is going, or there was some subtle aspect to the effort announced about two years ago by the FAA and EAA to focus on experimental accidents, specifically in the first 100 hours. Oh well. But you show mechanical plagues the experimental market about 2-3 times higher then the a couple of certified planes.


Tim
 
Top