Crash Shows Dangers of Home Built Aircraft - Episode 214
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ส.ค. 2024
- Home-built aircraft are dangerous. Special guest Miles O'Brien joins Todd Curtis and John Goglia to discuss an August 2023 crash of a Kit Fox Model 3 aircraft that seriously injured the pilot.
The FAA's approach to home-built aircraft allows owners to build their aircraft with little or no direct oversight. The accident rate is more than two times higher than general aviation aircraft.
The pilot did not have a current FAA medical certification or a current endorsement to operate an aircraft as a single pilot. According to the maintenance documentation, in the eight years prior to the accident, the pilot had fewer than three hours of flight time.
Home-built aircraft have advantages such as lower cost of ownership. Kit built aircraft have grown in popularity as more manufacturers enter the market. There are even high schools that build kit aircraft for resale as part of their educational programs.
The safety risks are high. Kit aircraft are certified as experimental aircraft by the FAA. Some have modifications that would not be allowed on other kinds of general aviation aircraft. Little more than a driver’s license is needed to pilot one of these aircraft.
Related documents are available at the Flight Safety Detectives website.
Don’t miss what’s to come from the Flight Safety Detectives - subscribe to the Flight Safety Detectives TH-cam channel, listen at your favorite podcast service and visit the Flight Safety Detectives website.
Music: “Inspirational Sports” license ASLC-22B89B29-052322DDB8
As a builder and operator of three EAB (Experimental Amateur Built)aircraft and active in the homebuilding community over the years, I am compelled to respond to a couple of John comments . . . (quotes are not exact)
7:49 "(Homebuilders) think the rules dont apply to them".
This is vary rare IMO. The large majority of EAB owners and operators use FAA acceptable practices and respect the need for safe operation and maintenance. Using FAA standards is the standard, not the exception.
18:49 ". . . that is the attitude of may people . . . the rules dont apply".
Disagree, not true. Look at all the efforts of the EAA to educate, the various active forums, and experience the tone of conversations at airports with EAB owners/operators. Almost all in my experience are NOT flagrante or flippant regarding the rules and regulations of aircraft operations and maintenance.
Seriously this the is most misinformed bunch of pilots I have see on the internet.
They don't even understand basic med which applies to all private pilots.
The rates of accidents associated with experimental aircraft are not being accurately described.
What's the reason for the elevated accident rate though is it because of a few individuals or aircraft sitting idle for long periods?
Sounds like pilot error, not because this was a kit plane. 🙄
The description for this video states that kit
aircraft require little more than a driver's license.
DOES ANY OF THESE GUYS READ OR UNSTAND THE FARS ?
Somewhere in the show, I mentioned BasicMed and how it requires a driver's license, among other things. We also discussed that he did not have authorization to fly solo. My apologies if the writeup conflated a few things and gave the wrong impression.
Painful to listen to. Generalizations flying everywhere. Pilot was not qualified in multiple ways and obviously was not following rules.
Thousands of "home built" planes are safely in service, BS clickbait 🤪
Right!! all the plane crashes I’ve been seeing lately have been certified airplanes, doesn’t seem like they are educated in the topic
The quality of experimental aircraft has increased due to the 49% build kits from established manufacturers, and they do get initial and annual condition inspections. The John Denver situation is not unheard of, but it is not the general standard of experimental aircraft construction. People do stupid things no matter what type aircraft they have.
Dangers of SOME home built planes.
What a bunch of hacks. Guy does everything wrong and gets hurt therefore experimental aircraft are bad. For a video only 26 minutes long there was a lot that just is not true.
Ohhh boy, you guys really stepped on it this time....good luck with the comment section. Jb. ;-)
The title offers to show us the dangers of the home built aircraft, but the whole segment is about pilot attitude and failure to follow unspecified rules. Pretty sure the entire EAB community would agree that the pilot in this case deserved a Darwin Award...but what does one idiot's actions have to do with aircraft airworthiness, in particular when painted with a broad brush?
One of the dangers of homebuilt aircraft is some of the people who choose to build them and their reasons for doing so, plus the lack of regulation and oversight. Nothing too controversial here.
@@charlesfaure1189But they never really discussed anything wrong with the airplane.
@@charlesfaure1189wrong. The FAA inspects every single experimental aircraft before the first flight. The inspection often takes the better part of a day. The aircraft will not be issued an airworthiness certificate if it’s not built to aircraft standards and all paperwork is in order.
@@985aviator Well, no. The inspection is specifically to make sure that the paperwork is in order, that operating limitations and weight and balance are properly spelled out, and that placards and markings are clear. When all the Ts are crossed and Is dotted, the FAA or its designee pretty much cannot deny the applicant a special airworthiness certificate for the purpose of operating an amateur-built aircraft. What they can do, and have occasionally done, is to establish onerous Phase I testing conditions that limit the danger to the public, like only allowing flights within a few miles of a remote desert airport.
So, in summary, the pilot stalled the plane, ut we arent really told why. Was it just rusty skills? Was it an engine problem? Was it poor acceleration due to the prop adjustment he had just made?
Wow, this is incredibly uniformed and incorrect information. This is the type of pilot elitism that gives other pilots a bad rep. This crash was the result of a bad pilot with inadequate piloting skills. Everything else stated here was grossly incorrect.
Maybe stick to reporting on Cessnas and Bonanzas.
@Flight Safety Detectives Hey guys. You REALLY need to change the title of this episode. I've watched for 10min and 100% pilot error or bad choices you have spoken of. Not the Aircraft. And then you are talking about a topic you really don't know anything about. "The "FAA" should have some sort of inspection for these EXPERIMENTAL Aircraft before they fly?" Are you aware at all of the DAR? These Aircraft MUST be inspected before Airworthy. You mention "kids" building Aircraft in schools and then selling them to the lay person in the market to go fly. THAT is NOT happening guys. YES there are programs to build planes with students, but they are not on their own. They have lots over "oversight" ,as you keep saying, from the instructor. You all are sitting from some "High Position" pointing the finger, when you are NOT even in the game at all. In High School, this would be called be a "Poser." Feel free to "PIN" this comment to the top of your comments .I really don't understand the point of this episode other than to try and make it look like you are experts and trying to scare people away from the fastest growing segment in Aviation. You are stating.... (very loudly) that Experimental, Homebuilt, Kit Builders are absolute idiots. Far from the Truth.
Thank you! My wife and I are in the process of building a kit airplane. I'd put the build quality and safety of our EAB up against any similar certified aircraft. Any time there is a question about a process or procedure laid out in the in the build manuals, we consult the kit maker/designer, AC43.13, and experienced builders. As we work through the build, it's funny the number of times we look at a Cessna, Piper, Beech, or any other similar certified aircraft and comment on how shoddy some of the assembly work is. But many think since they're certified they're automatically safer...LOL!!
Not only should they change the title, they should take the video down. Otherwise they risk being fodder for more educated TH-cam commentators who will tear their analysis apart and reveal how little they know about aviation.
I chose this particular event because I was looking for a recently completed NTSB investigation of a general aviation event involving a serious injury or death where the NTSB also provided additional data in the Public Docket. While we made various comments and observations, my focus was on the decision-making, not the technology. My biggest takeaway from this accident was the role that the community around that pilot, whether it be family members or other aviators, can play a role in keeping that pilot flying, and in my opinion, a much bigger role than the FAA.
@@airsafe "While we made various comments and observations, my focus was on the decision-making, not the technology."
Then why the click-bait title?
"Crash Shows Dangers of Home Built Aircraft" doesn't exactly convey that the focus of the video was on the poor decision-making of the pilot.
The first line in the video description states "Home-built aircraft are dangerous." What does that have to with pilot qualification and currency?
The pilot in question could have just as easily disregarded the regs regarding pilot currency and crashed a Piper Super Cub or Cessna 170. Would the video title then have been "Crash Shows Dangers of Aging Aircraft"?
Just title it what it is: "Crash Shows Dangers of Disregarding Regulations"
@@airsafe You could have done that without impugning homebuilt aviation with a bunch of innuendo and misinformation.
these guys should do some research home built aircraft are inspected by the faa or a dar and licensed the pilots are also l just because some people do not follow the rules do not condemn as dangerous the whole home built world more media types that want be come experts
I soloed in 1968. Been a commercial, instrument, multi engine, commercial glider,and A&P for lots of years. Grew up with experimental airplains.
And have my own home built.
You guys are painting the wrong opinion of homebuilts.
Some people suck as pilots, some suck at building anything. Some people shouldn't be driving. Some people shouldnt even be allowed outside of there house.
Step back as to how you present your opinions. I feel this was bad.
I am a prior USCG Aviator (H65 pilot), commercial fixed & rotary-wing pilot and a Nurse Practitioner managing a 1800 patient panel as a Primary Care Provider. The level of licensure MD, DO, NP, or PA does not matter. I understand flight physiology better then my MD/DO colleages and I am more qualified to complete a Basic Med exams. MDs, DOs, NPs or PAs can complete these exams, after they demonstrate that they have a keen understanding of flight physiology. I stand by this statement, PILOTS IN A STATE OF WELLNESS are SAFER PILOT as compared to those pilots who are UNWELL.
Take care of yourself. Nevermind others. If it wasnt for creative non conformists like the wright brothers, nobody would be a pilot nowadays.
This video is irresponsible. You present many incorrect "facts" in an attempt to draw viewers, subscribers, and income. You achieved your goal of agitating everyone who flies homebuilt aircraft with your title. I wish I could take back my view as I don't want to support your channel one iota.
@flight safety detectives. Clearly you all are accomplished pilots with years of aviation experience. However nearly every point you have made about experimental aviation is flawed or heavily biased. Anyone can spin numbers or take numbers out of context and make the subject appear more or less “safe” than what it is in reality. The fact is experimental aviation is what has kept general aviation alive over the last two decades. I encourage you to dig deeper into this subject and truly educate yourselves on the facts. Look at the numbers in context. The airport that I fly from has a large amount of experimental aircraft. All are professionally flown and maintained using aviation grade materials and practices by the men and women who built them. By contrast you walk up to most certified GA aircraft at the field and they are barely airworthy. We could use men like you promoting experimental aviation and helping to make it even better. Most home builders know their limitations and take the time and effort get the training or help that is needed. Will you professionals set an example and do the same?
Just lost all credibility in my view. 100% pilot error and failure to follow the rules. This is just bashing the E-AB industry.
I am in the UK so not sure of your rules but I thought that experimental home build aircraft got checked before you could fly the 40hr test program, I know that in Canada they have to have (as we do) checks at stages through the build. It appears to me that the dicussion is a bit of a mix between experimental and part 103, when at the begining they talk about the pilot being the only one who is at risk, as experimental can be multi crew / passengers (at least that is my understanding, with aircraft like the Bearcat, big RV's and so on). From the start it is obviouse that this pilot did not follow rules, lack of currency, lack of medical, lack of check rides, he was an accident waiting to happen but for each one like hime there a lots of others who go above and beyond the beasic requirments.
This video takes a ridiculously egregious departure from normal pilot behavior to paint the experimental aircraft segment of flying as unsafe. My experience of building, maintaining, and flying my Kitfox over 25 years, and my knowledge of other builder/pilots has shown me the opposite. Experimental builders and pilots I know do not think they are above regulations and take every precaution to do regular maintenance, keep accurate logs, keep their planes safe as possible, and make sure they are current and legal to fly them. And my 20,000 plus flight hours over 60 years in general and airline aviation gives me perspective to have faith that experimental aircraft have a place in aviation. Retired A320 Capt with 800+ hours in a Kitfox 5.
Who would've thought building a home made plane would be so dangerous.
Any activity that involves accelerating the human body to potentially lethal velocities must be done carefully and seriously. The fact that the person flying this aircraft was in a homebuilt was not shown to be a contributing factor in this crash. When a person without a license and proper training hops into an aircraft and crashes, we should not be surprised.
According to the reviews views on my page, "condescending jerks" was the opinion of this video. How about some factual information in the future and fewer anti-homebuilt/LSA opinions. Good day.
Being an experimental aircraft builder and pilot, the main issue that contribute to the higher accident rate to in the experimental aircraft almost rest entirely on the pilots themselves. These people tend to be the type who don't follow regulations. They tend to be boastful about their piloting skills. They don't listen to advice. And the list goes on. There are thousands of experimentals that have flown for thousands of hours and free of accidents. But in many of the accidents involving experimentals, the root cause can be pointed at the builders and the pilots. I've known a gentleman who built a WW1 tailwheel replica but he had very little tailwheel experience many years ago but yet, he insisted that only he will conduct the test flight. He promptly ground loop his experimental during a taxi test and by the grace of god, after the fuel tank was ruptured, neither he nor the aircraft caught fire. This 100% due to the pilot's error and the pilot 's attitude. The same with showboating, low altitude buzzing, low altitude aerobatic like victory rolls that ended in crashes.
I would like to see John cover preflight inspections of props in light of NTSB’s recent guidance in SA090 April 2024. I am a Cub driver. They talk about small nicks. My question is what is the size of a small nick that I should be concerned about? Thank you for your consideration of my request.
As a builder of 7 homebuilt Experimental and Ultralight aircraft over the last 40 years and with 8 years as an EAA Technical Safety Counselor, this video strikes me as as a biased premise that finds just the right combination of idiots to make itself seem plausible.
"Analyst" O'Brien is in straight-up hack mode here. No, homebuilts did not arise because of increasing litigation, that came 30 years after the FAA started allowing amateur-built aircraft. The only sane reason for building your own airplane is because you want the experience of building your own airplane. If you just want to fly, then just buy an airplane. No, homebuilts are not 2.5x as dangerous as certificated, and O'Brien has no statistical basis for that statement. Yes, they are more dangerous, but the available data suggests that it is more like 45% more dangerous, not 250%. No, when you're flying an experimental aircraft, the rules are not different; we fly under 14CFR parts 61 and 91 just like everyone else.
BULLSHEET
somehow, listening, I can't help seeing a picture of wolves hungry at the scent of new blood...
regulators mad at something not being regulated...
whilst I think you should not be able to fly in an unregulated plane anywhere near a city or into a big airport... as long as you understand you are putting your life into your own hands, you should basically be free...
They must be really restricted on where they can fly because going over populated area's is other people's skin.
Homebuilts are indeed restricted from flying over congested areas during the Phase 1 test period where they demonstrate that they are safe. After that, they operate the same as certificated aircraft.
Miles O'Brien is a fine guest.👍
I heard CNN and left the video!
there are different kinds of Home-builds...
something like a Cri-Cri or a Legal-eagle is probably safe enough, since it's building is very much subject to detailed instruction, and there plenty of things done by the companies selling the kits to allow for the certification of those models *(if this was done when the companies were around)... indeed, these are very different from self-designed planes, or self-modified planes... which are truly experimental aircraft, even if a part of there construction was at a factory (take a heavily modified Piper or Skyhawk, or even a racing Cobra)... here, the pilot really needs to have the skills of a test-pilot to be able to deal with what it can throw at him.
The homemade plane can have a parachute though compared to a Boeing that loses a door after being worked on by a professional. I've always thought it was a little sketchy but I don't have to fly in it and it hopefully doesn't hit me on the way down.
Let’s see the statistics on how many people died and/or crashed with the parachute I deployed, vs those that deployed it and lived. It’s false insurance, as they can’t be deployed below a certain altitude or over a certain speed, and often somehow don’t get used even when they can. It’s a great marketing tool, especially on an extremely expensive plane marketed to doctors, businessmen, and Hollywood actors.
@RetreadPhoto it's the idea of a back up. Also, the idea that if you want to build a plane for yourself, you can. I am in no way suicidal. Wasn't there just a video of the chute in a real life scenario?
Yeah it's like saying all jets are unsafe because Boeing exists 😂.
@bradleydobie3891 if you're a strawman making arguments
A lot of people react in the comments section like members of a cult.
It’s not just “kit builders” that think rules don’t apply to them, it’s Americans in general nowadays. Proof of this is everywhere. And that mental malfunction is getting worse. The planes aren’t honestly “experimental” unless they’re flown by professional licensed pilots, flight engineers, or test pilots. If it’s light sport aircraft, he doesn’t need a third class med cert or BasicMed. Yes, they’re more dangerous, but so are chainsaws. These people know the dangers and aren’t taking on paying passengers kr crashing into homes or parking lots full of people. If they want to swim with sharks, let ‘em. That’s just Darwinism, and culling the herd to make it stronger. John Denver included. He was clearly dangerous at any speed. As long as someone isn’t knowingly selling a dangerous kit. Dan G didn’t fill out his cornfield crash safety form either. You can build a custom motorcycle and sell it, that’s entrepreneurial capitalism and America(ns) love that model, and have a legal system people can use to sort out wrongs and torts. If these people want to fly and die in unsafe planes they can afford, with too little experience, who cares? Look at the guy that bought that crappy old twin and crashed because of water in the tank from a rusty gas cap. Caveat emptor. The people you’re talking about are flying the “Give Me Liberty” flag, and probably the “Cone and Get It” flag too. The more you try to limit and regulate them, the more flags they’ll fly, buy, make, market, and sell. Yes, the takeaway is avoid the idiots, don’t assume everyone is a good pilot in a good plane.
While I agree with some of what you wrote, you are way, way off base with a lot of it. Not a pilot are you? You speak like someone who knows very little about real world aviation.