Over View Of Homebuilt Aircraft

Of course, according to that guy's graph fully 40% of EX/Ab crashes are due to builder error or mechanical malfunction. I think the numbers are far better for their certificated brethren.

Sorry to rain on your parade.
 
I thought that chart was for all single engine, not just EAB....
 
steingar said:
Of course, according to that guy's graph fully 40% of EX/Ab crashes are due to builder error or mechanical malfunction. I think the numbers are far better for their certificated brethren.

Sorry to rain on your parade.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood the data - not the first time....common lib practice of reading in what fits their agenda....:nono:

"(2) The vast majority of accidents in EABs are cause by pilot error, not by mechanical failure. Nearly all accidents in EABs – and this is also true of factory-built single-engine airplanes – are caused by three factors: Flying into bad weather (such as icing or low visibility), mis-managing fuel (which typically means running out, but not always), or stalling the airplane shortly after takeoff or shortly before landing (due to getting too slow to fly, or turning too tight at slow speeds)."

Fortunately a bunch of Boeing engineers tend to get their facts straight, unlike some of the trollers around here.
 
Last edited:
From what I've seen, most eabs are well built and well finished. Many many builders are really talented people and they build nice safe aircraft. Seems safer than some of the old tired 40-50 year old derelicts one sees parked outside that people continue to fly with bogus entry's. Area between the ears causes most accidents.
 
flyingriki said:
You misunderstood the data - not the first time....common lib practice of reading in what fits their agenda....:nono:

"(2) The vast majority of accidents in EABs are cause by pilot error, not by mechanical failure. Nearly all accidents in EABs – and this is also true of factory-built single-engine airplanes – are caused by three factors: Flying into bad weather (such as icing or low visibility), mis-managing fuel (which typically means running out, but not always), or stalling the airplane shortly after takeoff or shortly before landing (due to getting too slow to fly, or turning too tight at slow speeds)."

Fortunately a bunch of Boeing engineers tend to get their facts straight, unlike some of the trollers around here.
Click to expand...

Not according to the graph in the link the OP posted.
 
flyingriki said:
You misunderstood the data - not the first time....common lib practice of reading in what fits their agenda....:nono:
Click to expand...
You do realize this is "Hangar Talk" and not the SZ don't you? I think an apology is in order.
 
steingar said:
Of course, according to that guy's graph fully 40% of EX/Ab crashes are due to builder error or mechanical malfunction. I think the numbers are far better for their certificated brethren.

Sorry to rain on your parade.
Click to expand...
I brought an umbrella. So what do we do about the higher percentage of accidents due to pilot error in "[our] certificated brethren"? :rolleyes:

Nauga,
with 100% on both sides
 
nauga said:
I brought an umbrella. So what do we do about the higher percentage of accidents due to pilot error in "[our] certificated brethren"? :rolleyes:

Nauga,
with 100% on both sides
Click to expand...

Keep in mind aircraft in the EX/AB sector are more likely to suffer a crash than their certificated brethren. I doubt that pilots of certificated aircraft are suffering miscontrol at a rate greater than their Ex/Ab brethren, though my Google-fu is not sufficiently strong to produce the relevant numbers.

Nevertheless, my comments were based specifically on the graph in the link presented by the OP. I simply read the graph.
 
I'm still waiting for an experimental pressurized 310. I might even build a P-Baron if it existed. Either way, I'd slap on a pair of GTSIO-520s, just because I can. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top