But the problem is – where do you draw the line? A C172 can be – and many are – used for commercial ops, sightseeing, meat bombing, survey, etc, etc. People do sightseeing flights, or ‘experience flights’ in C152s. The line isn’t as clear as ‘C172 vs A380’. There are many, many shades of grey in between.
There is no well defined line, I agree, but we have the same “problem” in commercial vs private pilot license. Most cases are obvious though. Sightseeing flights are clearly commercial if more money comes in than goes out, and even if no profit is made it is commercial in my opinion. “Experience flights” are more difficult because it is not very well defined and is dependent on circumstances. In some cases it may end up in seemingly ridiculous situations, like farmers cannot legally use their microlight or experimental homebuilt helicopter to look for their sheep in their woods and mountains, but this and similar exceptions should be easy to handle. Trying to “commercialize” GA flying, mix commercial and recreational/private flying, in the hope that it will somehow ease the economical burden will have the exact opposite effect for everybody. The exception is high end flying in business jets and similar, there it is irrelevant. In my opinion there is only one way to lower the economical burden, and that is to substantially ease the bureaucracy and focus on the recreational part (including sporting activities).
Regarding the nonsensical bureaucracy of light aircraft, one study contracted by EASA in relation to ELA-1 legislation is very interesting. Here they looked at accident rates of European microlights (MTOW 450 kg) and US LSA, and compared with other similar activities, light GA (MTOW 1200 kg), ballooning and gliding. There are some holes in the material since microlights are not normally under CAA legislation and not EASA and there are great differences from country to country, but the conclusion is crystal clear, and virtually identical to what was found in the USA (experimental vs certified).
The safety outcome appears primarily dependent upon pilot training and subsequent
continuation training & education within a supportive environment. With such measures in
place the safety outcome is comparable to other sectors of recreational aviation such as
gliding.
The general conclusion from microlighting therefore was that the fatal accident experience
where initial airworthiness was the primary cause, was no worse than that experienced in
the ‘fully regulated’ light aeroplane sector. This is significant. Also significant is the fact that
accidents involving fatalities to ‘uninvolved’ third parties are almost unheard of, whether for
microlights, CS 23 aeroplanes, gliders or balloons. The risks based on empirical evidence
are limited almost exclusively to the occupants of the aircraft, or people on the ground near
the aircraft when moving.
etc etc
All the reports and data can be found here
I am severely handicapped!
To use a caricature, homebuilders are probably very similar to people who rebuild E-Type Jags etc from a pile of rusty bits of metal. Nothing wrong with that; they are just not your average PPL.
Ummmm, I actually don’t know that many people who aren’t like that, private pilots or otherwise. Its a personal problem 
Maybe a few of my motorcycling friends might fit the ‘vehicle user/consumer’ mold, otherwise nobody except family – who aren’t pilots. The rest, including pilot friends worldwide, are all gear heads. Some of them have other attributes too and I manage to lead a fairly normal life despite this handicap.
Until the accident reports illuminate these factors (which they mostly won’t ever do because it is regarded as outside their remit) they will have little value in working out how safe or unsafe something is.
Why is this so hard to understand? The statistics is easy and clear. There is no need to illuminate “these factors”, it is irrelevant. All there is to do is to find out why experimentals have a higher accident rate than certified. The answer was NOT technical error, as one would believe. The answer was unfamiliar systems and unfamiliar handling for those who did not built themselves, and unfamiliar handling for them that did also build the aircraft. There was no difference between the two categories regarding technical error, but easily fixed fuel related errors were over-represented in the experimental category.
As to why there was no difference regarding technical faults, one can only speculate, but the fact still remains, nothing can change that fact. My theory is that experimentals are simpler designs to start with, at least most of them are. Simpler design, fewer parts, less can go wrong. But another factor in my opinion, the most important one is that experimentals receive continuous maintenance from their owners, they are cared for, most certified aircraft are not. Maintenance of certified aircraft consists of doing no more than absolutely necessary for as little money as possible (excluding the exceptions, they are few). The same is seen in microlight vs certified.
To use a caricature, homebuilders are probably very similar to people who rebuild E-Type Jags etc from a pile of rusty bits of metal. Nothing wrong with that; they are just not your average PPL.
To be honest, there are some truth in that, but in my opinion you strike me as the perfect candidate for someone who is likely to start building. It is not that difficult, even housewifes with no technical education did it during the war. A quick built RV-8 or -7 is built in a couple of years. Lots of space in them, cruise at 170-180 knots, 7-800 nm range. Take off and lands everywhere. Then you could even lobby for IFR for British “permits”
Pilots who bought ready to fly experimentals had an accident rate way higher than the pilots that also build their aircraft
I am certain there will be massive self selection as to the pilot’s character profile, between Exp pilots who build their own, and Exp pilots who bought it from somebody.
Some of the reports of how long it takes to build a “homebuilt” are eye watering – of the order of a few thousand hours if you genuinely built it, or most of it – rather than covertly paid a “serial build assistant” to build it for you as reportedly sometimes happens here in Europe. That level of commitment requires a special personal situation (starting with a very tolerant spouse, if you don’t live alone) and an unusual character profile verging on the obscessive even by the standards of aviation behaviour
To use a caricature, homebuilders are probably very similar to people who rebuild E-Type Jags etc from a pile of rusty bits of metal. Nothing wrong with that; they are just not your average PPL.
Until the accident reports illuminate these factors (which they mostly won’t ever do because it is regarded as outside their remit) they will have little value in working out how safe or unsafe something is.
I still don’t see it that way. Only if he would have the builder and the pilot, then he would be 100 percent responsible.
I disagree. Even if he just piloted the aircraft, then as a pilot you are sole responsible for adequate functionality of knobs, switches and controls on a light aircraft. It is part of the pre-check list. Being able to reach them is one basic functionality. Even in certified aircraft, in a Cessna, the pilot must adjust the position of the chair to reach all the knobs and to see out the windows.
But in order for this analysis to make sense in our context here, one should not compare the number of accidents of certified aircraft vs. non-certified aircraft. Homebuilders and pilots of non CofA aircraft (not talking about gliders and microlights here!) are usually very technically minded persons with much above average knowledge of aircraft systems, aerodynamics and powerplants (John Denver apart).
You have a point here, but this is covered in the report as one of the main findings. Pilots who bought ready to fly experimentals had an accident rate way higher than the pilots that also build their aircraft, in particular during the first couple of hours flying. This is due to lack of aircraft familiarity and aircraft systems familiarity. But even the builders typically lacked aircraft familiarity according to the report, and this caused lots of accidents.
I don’t think I’ll drift off into the world of non-aviation legal hype but might offer this…
Just imagine that a homebuilder doesn’t like the way how the stick controls the elevator but prefers it the other way around: pull the stick for nose down… Now would you blame the crash of this aircraft on the pilot alone who buys it from the builder?
Yes, I would blame it on the pilot alone, if the plane is operating on an Experimental airworthiness certificate. He would need to properly prepare for the flight, or expect to suffer the consequences. Judging by your belief that pilots need training for reversed elevator controls, as with weight shift aircraft now, you would agree. However, I think, assuming he will be operating within the limits of his pilot certificate, he should choose how to prepare for the flight of an Experimental aircraft in the manner he sees as appropriate.
How comes it then, that after becoming the owner of a cup of coffee bought at McDonalds, Mr MacDonald is still fully responsible when I scald my tongue with his hot coffee and has to give me enough money to pay for a nice business jet as compensation ?
The McD case is not representative of US culture or of an alleged readiness to go to litigation. If the level of litigation over there was even 1% of what we are led to believe, every business in the US would have folded up within weeks of starting. A grocery store would sell a bag of nuts on which somebody chokes and bang goes the grocery store…
What protects the US homebuilt scene are some specific provisions concerning freedom, which don’t exist in Europe.
All weight shift aircraft have pitch control reversed.
Yes. But because of that, in most parts of the world you need extra training for weightshifts!
The fact that this is not the case has been the basic idea, by design, of the FAA Experimental Amateur Built category since 1953.
That strikes me as strange because otherwise the United States can be considered the motherland of product liability… and to continue with that:
I think the act of buying something is taking on responsibility for it and your use of it.
How comes it then, that after becoming the owner of a cup of coffee bought at McDonalds, Mr MacDonald is still fully responsible when I scald my tongue with his hot coffee and has to give me enough money to pay for a nice business jet as compensation ?
Therefore in my part of the world, people can only build their own aircraft under the supervision of an inspector who will make sure, that certain standards are met.
The fact that this is not the case has been the basic idea, by design, of the FAA Experimental Amateur Built category since 1953. You don’t have take part if you don’t want to, it’s a free country as they say
All weight shift aircraft have pitch control reversed.
