Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - CH601 and CH701 safety, accident info requested

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

CH601 and CH701 safety, accident info requested

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

mrbizi(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:39 am Post subject: CH601 and CH701 safety, accident info requested

Hello.

  Does anyone know a good site where I can get accident statistics for the CH601 and CH701?  I've seen some recent accidents in Zodiac XLs and that really concerns me.  However, I'm wondering if the recent accidents are just a coinsidence that 3 happened in November 2006 or is that many accidents to be expected with this experimental class of planes?

   

  I'm trying to compare their safety record to that of a production plane like a Cessna.

   

  I read Chris Heintz's letter on his design techniques that said his designs should be safer.... but I'm looking for additional proof that they really are safer than the average experimental and to see if they are as safe as a production plane, etc. provided I build it per the plans.

   

  Please let me know.  Thanks for any advice you might have.

   

  Thanks,

  Josh

 [quote][b]

- The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:53 am Post subject: Re: CH601 and CH701 safety, accident info requested

The problem with aircraft accident statistics at least as far as VFR/GA is the number that is used as a base to compare. The only way to compare is accidents per hours flown and who knows how many hours Cessna 172s were flown last year. I don't and neither does the FAA or NTSB. Any number you see is a simple wild ass guess because nobody has ever asked me officially how many 172 hours I've flown and I've never met anyone who has been asked.



Even if there were good numbers on 172 hours flown there aren't enough 601 & 701 hours to statistically valid.



Now I'm not saying that accident reports aren't a good thing to look at when choosing an aircraft but you need to look at what the cause of the accidents were. In the case of homebuilts you would probably expect to see a larger number of accidents that happen in the first several hours the plane was flying. Is that because there was a problem with the design or with the particular aircraft or was it because the pilot wasn't current because he had spent the last 5 years building the plane and not flying?  I know if I finished my airplane today I would be a hazard to myself and anybody in my flight path because I'm no where close to current. Which is why before the plane is ready I plan to not only get some ours in a 601 but I'm also going to go get some Upset and unsual attidude training.



To sum it up when looking at accident reports it isn't the number it is the causes that really mean something. If there is a design flaw the causes will show it sooner or later.

 



[quote="mrbizi(at)yahoo.com"]Hello.

  Does anyone know a good site where I can get accident statistics for the CH601 and CH701?  I've seen some recent accidents in Zodiac XLs and that really concerns me.  However, I'm wondering if the recent accidents are just a coinsidence that 3 happened in November 2006 or is that many accidents to be expected with this experimental class of planes?

   

  I'm trying to compare their safety record to that of a production plane like a Cessna.

   

  I read Chris Heintz's letter on his design techniques that said his designs should be safer.... but I'm looking for additional proof that they really are safer than the average experimental and to see if they are as safe as a production plane, etc. provided I build it per the plans.

   

  Please let me know.  Thanks for any advice you might have.

   

  Thanks,

  Josh

  	  Quote: 	
		  [b]

- The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

taffy0687(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:34 pm Post subject: CH601 and CH701 safety, accident info requested

Hi Josh,  I don't know if you mean the published reports by the NTSB or another type of study which someone has done.

  

 My opinion only,  Chris H. has designed some very safe aircraft.  Unfortunately, there have been some very bad accidents with the 601.  Some, "pilot induced",  a couple of accidents are still being investigated.------------ of all the accidents, I am wondering, (NOT SPECULATING)  and waiting for the NTSB report on the one which came apart in flight with a man and his wife on board.  (this one raises my eyebrow, thats why I feel very comfortable with the "changes I have made on my XL fuel /electrical system.)

 (not implying anything----- just saying I made some changes which I the builder/pilot of MY airplane feels more comfortable with)

  

 If you want to see a truely impressive safety record, check out the 701 on the NTSB.  

  

 To be fair, the "study" should also show the causes of  the accidents.  As you mentioned earlier, a lot of accidents are caused by fuel mismanagement.   

  

 Fritz  XL -- 90/90-- Corvair

  

 



 

 ---

- The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

Bob

Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 89
Location: Damascus, Maryland, USA

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:30 am Post subject: Re: CH601 and CH701 safety, accident info requested

Not a complete list by any stretch, but go to:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

Check the amateur-built box and put "601" in the block for make/model, then click on Submit Query.  You'll get two pages of records for variants of the 601. You can change the make/model to "zenith," "Zenair," etc.

Bob

- The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

_________________
Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.

mrbizi(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:57 am Post subject: CH601 and CH701 safety, accident info requested

All:

Here is a spreadsheet that was put together so I could get a better idea of their safety record.  It's all NTSB information except for the number of planes flying... that was from the Zenith website if available (not sure the 801 list is correct).

   

  thanks.



  PS This information is provided at your own risk you need to do your own research and not depend on this research.  The best source is directly from the NTSB and other such organizations.  EAA and AOPA can help.

   

  

Bob <dswaim1119(at)comcast.net> wrote:

  [quote]--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bob" 



Not a complete list by any stretch, but go to:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

Check the amateur-built box and put "601" in the block for make/model,

- The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

NTSB_601_701_801_accidents_as_of_120606.xls

Description:

Download

Filename:

NTSB_601_701_801_accidents_as_of_120606.xls

Filesize:

233.5 KB

Downloaded:

599 Time(s)

David X

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 154
Location: Princeton, NJ, USA

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject: Re: CH601 and CH701 safety, accident info requested

I suppose if you were interested in how safe the 601 airframe is, then you'd be looking for structural issues (like the rest of us). Until most recently, there has been no real question or issue in regard to the structure of the 601. The few recent open investigations are of interest to us all, but we'll have to wait for the final outcome of the investigations before we can make any conclusions about structure. 



I don't know that counting the sure number of accidents to number of flying is going to tell you much of value either. If there were patterns, then that would catch our attention ... but I've not been able to find any related patterns or any incidents that are any more usual than that occurring in other low-wing aircraft.



The relatively small numbers of 601 aircraft make it difficult to find patterns. Cessna 172s, for example, are more prone to landing bounce, especially with new pilots. But there are a huge number of 172 flying and therefore patterns are easier to spot.

- The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

_________________
Zodiac 601 XL - CZAW Built - Rotax 912S
DO NOT ARCHIVE

dplozay(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:09 am Post subject: CH601 and CH701 safety, accident info requested

Just a note of clarification. You really can't have  a valid percentage calculation with less than 100 observations. Calculating the  accident/fatality rate as 28% with only twenty-some observations does not give  an accurate prediction of what others may experience.

  

 I applaude the effort it took to compile this  spreadsheet and I think the raw data is valuable. I also don't want people to  get the idea that they have a 28% chance of dying if they have an  accident in the CH701. 

  

 Respectfully,

 Omaha Dave

  

 CH701/912S builder

  

  

 [quote]   ---

- The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

mrbizi(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject: CH601 and CH701 safety, accident info requested

Thanks for the clarification.   PS it was the 601 that had a 28% chance of fatality IF you ever got in an accident…   The 701 has zero fatalities or 0% fatality but double the number of accidents per number flying (i.e. 500 701s flying and 20 some accidents to date… vs. 1000 601s flying and 20 some accidents to date)…   

   

If you look at the general aviation stats over all… typically they are done differently (i.e. per 100,000 flying hours)…. However the accident rates vs. fatality rates per AOPA, etc. are calculated by dividing the total number of fatal accidents by the total number of accidents… which is the same way they were calculated in the spreadsheet….   So of all accidents… on average… there is a 26% (or so depending year considered) chance of fatality of all GA accidents per the Nall report…  

   

So, the 601 is right inline with the fatality rate… the 701 fatality rate is MUCH better than average… but the real story is that when comparing a 20 year period of C182 statistics from AOPA…. The total population of 182s were around 13,000 flying for that period and the accident rate was MUCH higher than the 601 or 701…  

The stats were similar to around 10% of the C182s had accidents in a 20 yr span….. where as a 20 yr span for the 601 shows an accident rate of only 2% or so.  

   

Not bad hey!  

   

Anyhow, the bottom line is that we all need to do our best to keep the 601 and 701 stats as low as possible as we build our planes and grow the fleet!   

   

     

Thanks,   

[b]Josh Olson[/b]  

[b]Email:[/b]  mrbizi(at)yahoo.com (mrbizi(at)yahoo.com)  

   

   

        

  

From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Plozay

 Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 12:09 PM

 To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: CH601 and CH701 safety, accident info requested  

  

     

Just a note of clarification. You really can't have a valid percentage calculation with less than 100 observations. Calculating the accident/fatality rate as 28% with only twenty-some observations does not give an accurate prediction of what others may experience.  

    

   

    

I applaude the effort it took to compile this spreadsheet and I think the raw data is valuable. I also don't want people to get the idea that they have a 28% chance of dying if they have an accident in the CH701.   

    

   

    

Respectfully,  

    

Omaha Dave  

    

   

    

CH701/912S builder  

    

   

    

   

  [quote]    

---

- The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum