Tecnam high accident rate

[grantopperman]

Yes, Please, WinP! Transition, recurrent training and safety culture suck in the LSA world, to put it in plain terms. I’m not saying anything about Tecnam specifically, but there’s a very different attitude than in the Part23 world. I would love to be part of your improvement movement!

[ChiMike]

I absolutely agree to both the utility and necessity. I speculate that this type of focus has been avoided by Tecnam deliberately. The company has successfully avoided most if not all liability tie-ins with its LSA products sold in the USA. Just look at how they avoid many warranty issues. While the U.S. market is important to them, they could live without us and probably would do so very easily if the kinds of product liability issues were to become the issue that they became for U.S. dependent Cirrus.

I’m curious what others think about how this could be put together without support and sanction from Tecnam.

[pv9]

Nov 23, 2021 14:48:54 GMT WinP said:

With such low numbers it's hard to draw too many conclusions. I am new to the LSA and Tecnam world, having just sold my Cirrus and actively considering whether to buy a P2008. One thing I will offer by way of observation is that in terms of teaching and preaching safety the Tecnam world suffers by way of comparison with the Cirrus world. This is largely a function of numbers. There are so many Cirri flying, and so many Cirrus pilots, that it's easy to focus on safety in a very significant and well-organized way. The Cirrus pilots forum is first and foremost a forum for sharing best safety practices. A number of years ago when it was obvious that Cirrus pilots were dying in situations where they would have lived had they pulled the chute, the Cirrus pilots association made a concerted push -- online, at all of the many training weekends they hold during the year, through the network of Cirrus certified instructors, etc -- to educate Cirrus pilots about when to use the chute. It worked. The fatal crash numbers came down. And also the same thing happened when a spate of landing accidents occurred. Though all of the many available channels Cirrus pilots were educated about proper landing speeds. Cirrus now provides at no cost three days of transition training to anyone who buys a used Cirrus. Through these and so many other ways a culture of safety has been created, fostered and propagated. So coming from that environment the LSA world looks a bit like the "Wild West." It's just smaller, newer, and more fragmented. If I end up buying a P2008 (alternatives are buying nothing or the Flight Design F2 which I'm also going to test fly in the coming weeks) I'll certainly do my part to try to bring a bit of that culture to this forum. Interestingly three of the other posters in this thread are former Cirrus owners who migrated to the P2008, all of whom have been generous with their time in counseling me on my decision.

I agree wholeheartedly. If properly trained, LSAs like the P2008 can be flown much more safely that the Cirrus as the safe flight envelope is so much more forgiving.
Unfortunately, a majority of the Tecnam accidents are occurring with pilots who have transitioned out of a type certified aircraft to a LSA for various reasons (medical, etc).

[WinP]

Nov 22, 2021 23:13:35 GMT Glenn said:

The FAA website shows there are about 70 registered in the U.S. Eight of those are in Sebring awaiting delivery.
 
ARKANSAS - 1

CALIFORNIA - 3

DELAWARE - 4

FLORIDA - 14

GEORGIA - 3

HAWAII - 1

IDAHO - 1

ILLINOIS - 4

INDIANA - 2

IOWA - 1

KANSAS - 1

KENTUCKY - 1

MICHIGAN - 1

MINNESOTA - 1

MONTANA - 3

NEVADA - 1

NEW YORK - 1

OKLAHOMA - 2

OREGON - 1

PENNSYLVANIA - 3

SOUTH DAKOTA - 2

TENNESSEE - 2

TEXAS - 5

VIRGINIA - 4

WASHINGTON - 1

WISCONSIN - 4

How does that square with GAMA data showing 58 sold in 2020?

[Glenn]

That's a good question. The explanation might be that the GAMA numbers are "planes shipped" as opposed to planes sold. What's the source for GAMA's numbers? My guess is the numbers came directly from Tecnam's PR people. 

Also the FAA registration data is always a few months behind and takes a while to catch up. 

[WinP]

It's more than that. I just went through the GAMA reports back to 2013. Tecnam doesn't show up in 2012 and 2011, I don't know when they started sales in the US. But here's what I see for 2019 through 2013:

2019: 39
2018: 35
2017: 19
2016: 24
2015: 24
2014: 36
2013: 19

[Glenn]

I wouldn't place to much confidence on GAMA published figures. I go by the FAA list of registrations even though it's always behind.


When I bought my wife's P2008, the registration took months to finally be recorded. Shannon Yeager kept making small mistakes that the FAA wouldn't accept. It took many back-and-forth correspondence and corrected forms and apologies from Yeager. 

[WinP]

Maybe someone will have better luck than I've had but I tried to search the FAA database under "Tecnam" and found nothing. Not an easy database to search.

[pv9]

Dec 22, 2021 16:02:14 GMT WinP said:

Maybe someone will have better luck than I've had but I tried to search the FAA database under "Tecnam" and found nothing. Not an easy database to search.

The type in the FAA database is P208. Yes, it is a strange type designation.

[grantopperman]

That’s the same type identifier you enter in flight plans. It’s hilariously awesome how often you get called a Centurion or a Caravan by ATC. Or the controller just asks what the heck you are.

[Glenn]

Dec 23, 2021 0:35:37 GMT pv9 said:

Dec 22, 2021 16:02:14 GMT WinP said:

Maybe someone will have better luck than I've had but I tried to search the FAA database under "Tecnam" and found nothing. Not an easy database to search.

The type in the FAA database is P208. Yes, it is a strange type designation.

Don't forget it is made in Italy and the manufacturer's name is not Tecnam.

It's easy. Just go to registry.faa.gov/AircraftInquiry/Search/MakeModelInquiry

Enter COSTRUZIONI AERONAUTICHE TECNA as the manufacturers name.

Then enter P2008 or any other Tecnam model.

[WinP]

There is such an enormous disconnect between the GAMA numbers and the FAA database that I tend to think the FAA number is wrong, due to errors or otherwise. But who knows. We could ask Tecnam. As a test I wonder if everyone on this forum would search the FAA database and find his or her bird. If not it would suggest a problem with the database.

[FormerCirrus]

Back to the question of safety ... The P2008 is really easy to land, and at a slow stall speed. Just on that point alone, the P2008 is inherently safer than most LSAs, many of which are notorious for landing prangs. (Paging Flight Design ...)

Number two, the P2008 is remarkably stable and well-harmonized. It's easy to fly. It doesn't have any gotchas, such as my previous plane, the Cirrus SR22, which had (in addition to high stall speeds for a piston single), poor tactile feedback at slower turning speeds (e.g., base-to-final).

The DA40 is inherently the safest plane in GA. It doesn't so much stall as do a fallen leaf with minimal rudder control. While I wouldn't put the P2008 in the same category as the DA40 -- the P2008 will drop a wing in stall, the cockpit cage isn't as robust as a DA (how can it be with LSA weight limits?) -- in its handling and flight characteristics, the P2008 rhymes.

[ChiMike]

There are two types of LSA airplane designs: those built to the the LSA standards (minimal as they are) and which have an enclosed canopy, and those like the Tecnam that are designed and built from the ground up as ‘real, certified, airplanes’ but sold in the LSA category like the P2008. The new FD may fit in that second group as well but I haven’t flown one yet.

I don’t look at the LSA’s in that first group as particularly safe when compared to second group.

I’ve flown in both categories of LSA to include several Flight Designs, Tecnam Bravos, and P-92’s in the first category. In that second category I’ve flown all of the Tecnam P2008 engine configurations and I own a 914 P2008. (I’ve additionally flown Cessnas and a Cirrus.) When it comes to feel, responsiveness, and flyability within the design parameters of each type, I’ll take the P2008t any day. Can you stall, overfly, crash, run off the runway in one? Of course. Can happen to any of us in any airplane. But it sure seems like I would have to really try to do that in the P2008 compared to the others.

[Glenn]

Dec 23, 2021 23:11:11 GMT ChiMike said:

There are two types of LSA airplane designs: those built to the the LSA standards (minimal as they are) and which have an enclosed canopy, and those like the Tecnam that are designed and built from the ground up as ‘real, certified, airplanes’ but sold in the LSA category like the P2008. The new FD may fit in that second group as well but I haven’t flown one yet.

I don’t look at the LSA’s in that first group as particularly safe when compared to second group.

I’ve flown in both categories of LSA to include several Flight Designs, Tecnam Bravos, and P-92’s in the first category. In that second category and I’ve flown all of the Tecnam P2008 engine configurations and I own a 914 P2008. (I’ve additionally flown Cessnas and a Cirrus.) When it comes to feel, responsiveness, and flyability within the design parameters of each type, I’ll take the P2008t any day. Can you stall, overfly, crash, run off the runway in one? Of course. Can happen to any of us in any airplane. But it sure seems like I would have to really try to do that in the P2008 compared to the others.

ChiMike,

You've made a good point. In fact, I consider this to be a crucial point to understand. All planes fly but that doesn't mean they all fly the same. Add to that the bad habits that many pilots acquire and the results will include incidents or accidents. To stay out of trouble, a Cirrus can't be flown the same way as a Cessna 172 or a Tecnam P2008 but each can be flown very safely.