There are exceptions to every rule, and the Ark and the Titanic are two of them. However, as a general rule, one is more certain of the mechanical and aerodynamic reliability of a production certified aircraft than an Experimental one. Sure, I'd be happy to instruct in an Experimental airplane put together by Burt Rutan's shop, and I'd take a long hard look at a production certified airplane maintained by a few mechanics I don't trust, but the fact is that in most cases, you'll have to sell an instructor/examiner on flying in an amateur-built airplane but have little trouble getting one into a production certified one. For that reason, if you're planning on getting trained in an RV, you'd best find out before you build/buy it that you will have an instructor and an examiner who'll do the job for you.
Remember. . . it was a certified airplane maintained by a certified, licensed A&P/IA that damn near killed me. Had there been anyone in the right seat, such as in instructor giving me a night-flight/IFR checkout, they would be reading this from underneath the roots of the daiseys growing over them.
The RV community is fairly tight and flush with CFIs and examiners. We know what to look for in the construction and logs and building history and we also know what to look for in the attitude of the builder/owner. I know instructors and examiners in the RV community who have refused checkouts/rides/BFRs/instruction in fellow RVers' aircraft.
The Lancair community, while smaller, is much the same and there are a number of Lancair owners who likewise are also instructors/examiners.
I know--and fully respect--your thoughts on statistics-per-incident andectdotal reasoning. But remember also that it was a certificated airplane that ran over an experimental at Oshkosh this year killing the passenger in the experimental.
I've seen more rental aircraft, even to this day, that I would be more afraid of flying than I have experimentals. And that is a dead-on fact. I would trust an instructor who he him/herself is an experimental owner to go up with me than many of the lowtime CFIs I see teaching at the ticket mills.
We have one such mill in my neck of the woods that prohibits and forbids the use of flaps throughout the duration of PPL and even instrument training. While there is no clear way to legally meet the PTS requirements for a PPL checkride without using flaps (if your aircraft has them), the local FSDO chief gives a wink & nod to this school because they are fairly sizeable and write nice letters to OKC about this jerkoff.
I doubt this FSDO chief is all that major of an exception.
But in the experimental communities I'm part of and familiar with, this attitude of a "wink & nod" over questionable, if not outright illegal, tactics is not tolerated. Yet, it goes on daily in this segment of the certificated side of general aviation.
For what it's worth, I don't hop in ANY airplane--certificated or experimental--if I'm not confident in the machine's airworthiness. For an instructor or examiner to tell a young pilot to steer clear of experiementals and stick with certificated aircraft. . . as a blanket statement, is displaying either ignorance or prejudice--two traits both defined by a clear and purposeful lack of firsthand knowledge.
Regards.
-JD
