What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

What does your Data Plate really mean?

RV9AFlyer

Member
One of the most passionately debated topics with other experimental builders is what your data plate really means. Under my Aircraft Type: RV-9A. Under my Manufacture: Builder?s Name and Builder Address.

Now, if you look at the NTSB accident reports for experimental aircraft, and search for a kit-manufacture?s name, you will only find aircraft that they actually built. If you search for type such as RV, you will find all of that type along with many manufacture?s names. What this tells me is that I?m really the Manufacture of my airplane, and Van?s is only one of the OEM parts providers. This is what my wife has been telling me for years: ?Van?s supplies the parts and the dream, and you build the airplane?. However, this gives me the freedom to make my own decisions on modifications, on custom equipment and on maintenance practices for that airplane. Most builders agree with that, but when it comes to product liability, builders seem sharply divided. My personal feeling is that since the builder is the manufacture, he assumes that responsibility in exchange for the vast freedom and privileges he now has. For us, that is a very small price to pay for what you get.

My own research shows that RV accident statistics are only about 11 percent of the total experimental feet, and RV?s have roughly the same accident rate as the Cessna's if you compare the ratio of total feet type to total accidents of that fleet type. I also found that accidents seem to happen in either case for about the same reasons (not generally equipment failure). If you think about that for a moment, given 4,500 flying RV?s, these are truly amazing statistics given that there are so many different manufactures out there for RV's. :)

What is your opinion?

If you are a DAR, what is your understanding?
 
Last edited:
I don't totally understand the question. Yes, you are the manufacturer. Yes, you are free to do modifications. Yes, you are totally liable. The data plate must have the make (you), model (whatever you decided to call your airplane on the registration), and serial number (again whatever you used on the registration). The data plate must be permentlly mounted to outside of the airplane aft of the cockpit entrance. All this is covered in AC20-27F.
Mel...DAR
 
Statistics can be better

RV9AFlyer, I agree the RV's are safe but be careful how you draw comparison on you data. I have not done any statistical analysis on RV accident rate but I can tell you, it can be better and it does not mean you will be safe.

I have been flying for over 20 years, General aviation, CFI, corporate, airline and experimental. My slant is the RV group in particular and GA group in general can do better. I believe AOPA does the most extensive complete analysis of accident rates. So if you want to research this more, it would be a good place to start. I am not saying you are missing something, but accident Stats are very complicated to evaluate accurately. However I do agree with your general conclusion, RV's in general are safe airframes.

As far as the data plate, I agree with Mel. The significant part to me is the liability part, being the manufacture. As of NOW, at this time, no builder has been sued by another party as "the manufacture". Most likely its because most builders don't have the assets of Beechcraft, Piper or Cessna, which are ripe for product liability. However that does not mean we are off the hook if we sell our plane. Some builders have gone to the extream of taking the wings off and returning the FAA registration when selling their kit-plane, as un-airworthy parts only, in an attempt to limit liability. Others will try to use a liability release. Does that work? No one knows because it has never gone to court.

Bottom line the only safety that really counts is the safety you practice in your own plane. Just be careful. Reading accident reports is a great way to learn. Unlike gawking at a car accident, looking at a/c accident reports is a great way to learn from others mistakes. I can summarize most avoidable accidents as doing something dumb: flying in bad weather (low vis for VFR pilots top killer), running out of fuel, not being current, not maintaining the aircraft, not following Regs and limitations, are near the top of the dumb pilot tricks list. OK, just knowing this is not good enough unless you actively think of how to avoid these things, practice and operate accordingly. All these factors CROSS all kind of flying from ultralights to jet airliners to military jets. Airframe's don't crash, Pilot's crash. The airframe just goes along for the ride. Its fairly rare the airframe's at fault (but happens). The engine is a little more a factor, but when compared to stupid pilot tricks it is a distant factor.

Many planes get a bad rap because for some reason the marketplace puts inexperience pilots in "HOT" airframes. I think the Cirrus, Lancair, Bonanza suffer from this. If YOU where a rich student pilot and could buy any factory single, what would your get? A C172? Probably not. Same with the MU2, Mitsubishi Turbo prop. A great plane but NEEDS to flown by the numbers by a competent pilot. Unfortunately its cheap in the market, has very high performance and requires no spacific FAA training at this time (type rating). So guess what, it attracts the rich pilot/owner and the accident rate is? Poor. People blame the spoiler roll control, but that's not the problem. The pilot and lack of training is the problem. The easier to fly King Air tends to be flown by pro crews, therefore the accident rate is better.



Statistics are in a way meaningless until you become one. To use a clich? or two, don't be a statistic, safety is no accident. I can write like this because I still have my CFI ratings, so pardon my lecturing. Stats are fine but they mean nothing to me, in that I plan on not being one by following the mantra I chant before takeoff, "don't do nothing stupid, stupid". :D (I say it to myself because its disconcerting to the passengers when you say it out loud.)

Cheers George
 
Last edited:
Thanks Mel, good answer!

I have 25 years, have owned three aircraft and have done all owner assisted maintenance on them. I have flown almost every week since I was 17 years old without incident. I built and fly an RV-9A, and find it to be the best flying and safest airplane I have ever flown. I'm also 20-year engineer, and used statistics I use at work daily. I referenced the NTSB statistics for the data sets, which I consider the best data available. My point is that RV's are very safe flying machines when you compare them to certified aircraft. Even though I built and fly an RV, I did not think that this was true until I did the math myself, which perplexed me.

I guess, that the real answer boils down to this: "whatever it takes, and whatever you fly, don't make the 5 O'clock News". That has worked for me for years. :cool:

John
 
Last edited:
Improving accident data

I'm usually not one to think that government intrusion is a good thing, but...

One simple requirement that the FAA could require of all registered planes is to require an annual report of hours operated (hobbs or tach time or Timex). This would provide the accident investigators and AOPA with the big missing information that GA doesn't have: an accurate estimate of accident rate. We can tell how many accidents per airframe; how many per pilot; how many per ATC flight plan filed; but without the hours flown, GA accident analysis can't tell us whether Cessnas are safer than Pipers. The NTSB can tell us if Boeing is safer than Airbus, by looking at accident rate.
 
My opinion

Accidents, liability, who built it, who designed it. As a former Naval Aviator and safety school graduate I can share with you my secret knowledge -- accidents are primarily caused by the "loose nut" behind the stick. Steve Richmond, A6 pilot extraordinaire
 
How to be safe?

Since this has become a safety thread, I wanted to post something on that subject. The Air Force (I am currently active duty) is very good at the safety business, both in the air and on the ground. We analyze it to the extremes, and have entire career fields devoted to it. What we've learned is that we can never totally eliminate risk, but we can manage it well, usually by following a few simple guidelines. For example, this is how you avoid dying (or getting seriously injured) in a motor vehicle:
1. Do not ride motorcycles
2. Do not speed
3. Do not drive drunk
4. Do not drive tired
Statistically, you are very, very safe if you follow those 4 simple rules.

I'm a simple man, so I want to be able to break down the "rules" for being safe in my RV-6. Here's my proposed list:

1. Do not run out of gas
2. Do not fly into the weather (if you're not qualified)

So, statisticians among us, what is my risk of having an accident if I follow those 2 rules? I suspect it is pretty low, but I have no data to back that up.
 
3. Do not stall the aircraft in the pattern.

Add one more to your list;

3. Do not stall the aircraft in the pattern.

and I bet your statistical chances of a serious accident will diminish to a very low percentage.

Dave Cole
RV-7 wings
 
Last edited:
yes I agree, too

I agree with A6PILOT and JordanGrant--both military pilots. :cool: If you run out of gas, you just made your job much harder. If you run into ice or weather your ship or you can?t handle, you just made your job much harder. Make your job easy, and your flying risk will be much lower, too. Oh yes, as A6PILOT might say ?keep the nut tight behind the stick, too?. I guess that means when things do go wrong and they will if you fly long enough, don't let your nuts come loose. In reading accident statistics over the years to help me better understand why, they tend to read like "broken records" (if you remember records)--the same hand full of accidents over and over again with a different pilot at the controls each time. I guess that was really my point about RV's vs. Cessna accidents.

Because of this fact, I like to remember the following: "it's better to have a 1000 hours of flight experience then the first hour 1000 times." :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
...Back to the original question -- my limited knowledge...

A couple things for new builders that Mel left out -- with regard to the data plate (and liability):

1. The data plate MUST be FIREPROOF. That means stainless, not the mylar that can be typed on, or even aluminum. Of course, the data has to be readable after the fire (heaven forbid!) -- no pen to flill in the blanks. My DAR approved an vibrator inscribed data plate.

2. I think I am correct that as the manufacturer (i.e., you, the builder) are legally liable for the construction for a period of 18 years. There is an FAR somwhere??

That leaves a lot of time for ANYONE to come after you if there is a problem with the structure. That scenerio is more likely if the aircraft is sold, but not necessarily so. For example, a passenger's family might seek compensation if you, the manufacturer, still own, and/or fly the plane.

That's a good reason why it is comforting to most builders to follow the designer's plans very closely. Hopefully plans and components have been well engineered and the design has been tested for strength and other parameters. I know Van's has done the proper and thorough engineering and testing, but some other designs not so well designed. That's just one reason I chose to go with Van's design. This 7A is built like a brick s......! Strong!

On a relative note to one's liability, I called the EAA legal office about the matter less than a year ago and asked, among other things, if the 18 year liability has been a "problem" for builders. Anyone sued because of it? The fellow there (sorry, the name escapes me) said that in his twenty or so years in the office there has never been a law suit in that respect. Comforting, but it could happen any time....

Don Gray
Cortland, OH
N17QB 7A in progress

I have occasionally wondered how the 18 year limit came about, but I never found out. Any ideas out there?
 
18 year rule

Yes, I remember when the 18 year rule came about. APOA, in the early 90's, due to virtually every certified single-engine piston aircraft going out of production in the 80's, wanted manufactures to start building single-engine piston aircraft again. The reason they stopped was because there was no limit on product liability before about ~1997 (can't remember the exact year someone help me). However, AOPA was trying to limit product liability to 12 years and got 18 years instead. The point AOPA was tying to make was that if someone was still flying a Wright Flyer, then Orville and Wilbur Wright could still be sued for product liability, so that would make their insurance costs nearly impossible. However, much of the cost of a certified aircraft is still product liability. Does anyone out there know what that cost really is?

John
 
Last edited:
There HAVE been law suits filed against builders. I know of at least one myself. There have been NO SUCCESSFUL law suits against bulders. I know of one person that bought a bi-plane and ran it out of fuel on the way home. He filed a law suit against the builder. He lost the suit!
Mel...DAR
 
Back
Top