I know that some manufacturers both sell kit and finished version of their aircraft. For a fair comparison of accident rates, i was wondering:
What are the accident rates for kit built aircraft vs. normal aircraft of the same model?
Are the home-builds less safe than the company finished aircraft?
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau did a report titled:
This report specifically covers this and found that the accident rate was three times higher in kit built -vs- similar factory build aircraft:
What did this report do
The ATSB investigated the safety history of amateur-built aircraft in Australia through analysis of accident data held in the ATSB’s occurrence database from 1988 to 2010. Comparisons were made between accidents involving amateur-built aircraft and those involving similar factory-built aircraft to help identify whether the rate and types of accidents differed between these two groups of aircraft.
What the ATSB found
Amateur-built aircraft had an accident rate three times higher than comparable factory-built certified aircraft conducting similar flight operations between 1988 and 2010. The fatal and serious injury accident rate was over five times higher in amateur-built aircraft, in particular due to relatively more serious injury accidents. The pilots of amateur-built aircraft involved in accidents were significantly more experienced overall than factory-built aircraft accident pilots. However, they were significantly less experienced on the aircraft type that they were flying at the time of the accident.
Over half of the accidents were precipitated by mechanical events, which were mainly complete or partial engine failures. Following the amateur-built phase one test period, mechanical failures were still significantly more common when compared with factory-built aircraft. A quarter of accidents were from loss of aircraft control. Structural failures were not common precursors in amateur-built aircraft. Collision with terrain and forced landing accidents were more frequent in amateur-built aircraft. Collisions with terrain, hard landings, and runway excursions were more likely to result in a serious injury from an amateur-built aircraft accident than for factory-built accidents.
On the other hand, the EAA says that homebuilt aircraft have an accident rate of less than 1% higher than the general aviation fleet in their FAQ, but this didn't compare homebuilt to factory built in similar models:
How Safe Are Amateur-Built/Homebuilt Aircraft?
Studies by FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) show that Amateur-Built/Homebuilt aircraft have an accident rate less than one percentage point higher than the general aviation fleet. In fact, the accident rate for Amateur-Built/homebuilt aircraft is dropping. The total number of registered homebuilt aircraft is increasing by about 1,000 per year, while the total number of accidents has stayed virtually the same. Another good barometer of safety is insurance rates. Companies that insure both homebuilts and production aircraft charge about the same rates for owners of either type of airplane. That indicates a similar level of risk.
I know that some manufacturers both sell kit and finished version of their aircraft. For a fair comparison of accident rates, i was wondering: What are the accident rates for kit built aircraft vs. normal aircraft of the same model? Are the home-builds less safe than the company finished aircraft?
plane was fine, and I can't find any Part 61 regulations that are specific to experience in one make/model aside from adding an experimental aircraft as part §61.63(h)(1), which is what I assume... club's 1980 Piper Archer (PA-28-181). I have well over §61.109's 40 hours in the Warrior alone, and only ~10 hours in the Archer. I have a separate club checkout and CFI solo endorsement for each, they're pretty similar anyway—they're even both the same ATC type (P28A)—but they aren't the same model. Here's the catch: Form 8710, the "Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application", asks
Provided an aircraft with a fly-by-wire system, there are basically two possible choices when it comes deciding how to let the pilots interface with it: rate control / attitude hold: a deflection of the stick will command a certain rate, releasing it will make the system maintain the current attitude. See the Airbus Normal control law. direct control: a deflection of the yoke will directly translate to a deflection of the surfaces, mimicking the "old" mechanical control setup. It is my understanding that this is the design choice of Boeing in its new aircrafts. I do not wish to discuss
I've seen on numerous different constant-speed propeller aircraft and different pilots using different RPMs during the cruise phase on a propeller aircraft. What dictates the RPM used during normal cruise operations, and why is that the case? Often there are multiple possible throttle/RPM combinations that deliver the same power, so where would you pick one or the other?
to the cloud or a remote location either in lieu of or in addition to the physical devices installed in commercial aircraft. I would think this would be an accident investigator's dream come true...Another enthusiast question. I watch a lot of the National Geographic Channel's "Air Crash Investigation", for better or worse, and it seems accident investigators make tremendous use of the Cockpit Voice Recorder "CVR" and Flight Data Recorder "FDR" to determine the chain of events leading up to- or the root cause of an accident. One of the more recent episodes of ACI (Season 12 Ep. 13
of occurrence is approximately: 3/16/2014 6:09pm CST I have also verified FlightAware is ALSO showing the same weird glitch. See below "yellow" highlighted airplane: Same A/C from FlightRadar24...I was looking through my virtual radar logs one of the days and found this "glitchy" ADS-B behavior. I am almost 100% sure that this is not due to my antenna or setup since two independent different radars confirmed this weird behavior from FlightRadar24. Also A/C before and after this one did not exhibit this behavior. Does anybody have any thoughts as to what may be happening??? Why
What are the advantages and disadvantages of a high-wing vs. low-wing aircraft design? When might one prefer one to the other? Is the answer the same for large and small aircraft?
As far as my knowledge goes: There is a 250 kt speed limit under the altitude of 10.000 feet. This screenshot seem to show an aircraft below 10.000 feet and traveling at 285 kts at the time i captured the screenshot. I don't think this aircraft posed any threats to other aviation traffic as there is no other traffic in the airspace. I was just curious. EDIT: Shortly after: I see this aircraft taking off from the same airport. Doing the same thing as the first plane.
I constantly see regulations which refer to "flag" and "supplemental" operations. For example: 14 CFR 121 — OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS Subpart Q—FLIGHT TIME LIMITATIONS AND REST REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC OPERATIONS Subpart R—FLIGHT TIME LIMITATIONS: FLAG OPERATIONS Subpart S—FLIGHT TIME LIMITATIONS: SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS What exactly are they and how are they different from "normal" Part 121 operations? I can't seem to find them defined in Part 121 or 1.1 (definitions).
I've read a couple of times that "own-ship position display" is not authorized for use on Class 1 or 2 EFBs (by the FAA), and that both the FAA and EASA are cautioning against that feature's use on EFBs in general. Own-ship position is an aircraft's GPS position displayed against georeferenced charts and diagrams. Obviously the use of a portable device - iPad or otherwise - should not be enough for primary navigation, but what safety concerns do the authorities have with own-ship display? Specific accident reports or official citations would be great.