Would you fly a plane built by school students?

[rodgerc]

 

[facthunter]

Negative If the Rego on the tail is any Indication. Nev

[onetrack]

The build quality is all down to the quality and level of supervision. A lot of factory aircraft come with build errors.

 

In WW2, the Australian-built Beauforts and Beaufighters were notorious for major construction faults, with things like hammers being left inside wing structures.

I guess that's what you get, when speed of build is pursued over QC checks, when railway workers are utilised to build aircraft, and when you have a workforce with minimal previous aircraft construction experience.

[facthunter]

Women's Labour was used on a lot of WW2  aircraft in the USA. Douglas Aircraft had a Good Build Quality. In fact I've never heard any criticisms of any of the Major US Builders. . As OT above correctly states the Bristols mentioned were not Perfect that were Built here at GAF (I think) I knew a Bloke that worked there (now deceased. but he Made over 100 years) who was disappointed, however we did manage a lot with what we had it must be said. They were desperate times. . The Liberators were not a good design with handling and structural faults but were Mass produced unmodified for ease of servicing and training.. Consolidated Vultee Corp Built Catalina's.. In Australia Cabinet Makers built  Mosquitoes.  One of my Wood work Lecturers at Tighe's Hill Tech Did that. Claude Lamb I think his Name was...  Nev 

[440032]

Completely off topic by the third post! New record?

[onetrack]

Well, the question was put - would you buy an aircraft built by school students? That falls into the category of aircraft being built by people with minimal skills, which has happened many times before in Australia.

[rgmwa]

RV-12 school builds are well-established in the US. Some in NZ as well that I'm aware of. I was one of about 15 or more mentors on the SAAA's build a few years ago that involved about 5 schools across Australia. In Perth, they ran two build sessions per week. I only helped out once a fortnight but one or two dedicated mentors were there for virtually every session and really made the project happen. The students were 15/16 year old's divided into about half a dozen teams. Our build started half way though the year and went into the next year with a new lot of students so they had to start from scratch to learn the basic skills.

I was surprised by how awkward and uncoordinated some of the boys were in handling basic tools. They could barely use a screwdriver and we had a pretty high attrition rate as they soon realised that building a plane was essentially a slow and boring process with lots of repetitive tasks. A few were interested enough to see it though, and one young kid in particular was very keen and capable and was still there at the end.

In the first year we had two girls in the group and they ran rings around most of the boys. They listened, read the plans, followed instructions and were careful and precise in their workmanship. The same could not be said for some of the boys who were careless and disinterested and didn't take it seriously, but they didn't last long. We built the main fuselage and firewall forward while other schools did the tail cone, empennage, and wings. Some SAAA Chpt 24 members at Jandakot jumped in at the end to finish off the engine, avionics and fibreglass work. The students weren't allowed to do fibreglassing or priming due to the hazardous materials issues. Overall I'd say the quality of workmanship was probably no better or worse than many other homebuilt aircraft. It was obviously assessed as being airworthy anyway. These were just my observations and I don't know how the other schools went. It eventually all came together thanks to the hard work of a small core group of mentors.  The plane was/is called `Miss Tori". I don't know who owns it now but it was a very well equipped aircraft with dual Garmin G3 screens, autopilot, lights etc. 

Edited March 9 by rgmwa

[Moneybox]

I'd feel quite confident after seeing the quality control an supervision. Nothing would be hidden, every difficulty along the way would have a solution worked out by a group of experienced aviators. It's great to see this sort of initiative. Programs such as this should have full government support in a wide range of industries. 

[facthunter]

 While it's a commendable Idea, It Can't be the way to achieve the Ultimate Build quality. IF you wanted to train people you'd do it on disposable little exercises first and weed out the Notably less skilled . beforehand. Nev

[Moneybox]

32 minutes ago, facthunter said:

 While it's a commendable Idea, It Can't be the way to achieve the Ultimate Build quality. IF you wanted to train people you'd do it on disposable little exercises first and weed out the Notably less skilled . beforehand. Nev

Every industry used to have their apprentices and trainees, in most cases they start out sweeping floors, emptying bins, defending themselves from tricksters and usually poorly supervised. If the video is anything to go by these kids may have been thrown in at the deep end but with good supervision, training and procedures. Don't forget we're comparing this build to the average homebuilt where the workflow is often non-existent, guidance often poor and skill levels of somebody with great expectations and limited experience.

[Thruster88]

The RV12 is a matched hole kit with mostly pulled rivets with and and good build manual. Less likely to go wrong.

[facthunter]

Moneybox,You have just done a great job for the Critics of our Movement. When you build a plane for yourself. You have a special interest, because your LIFE depends on hew well you do it, and IF you are NOT sure you FIND out.. Nev

Edited March 10 by facthunter

[kgwilson]

I have seen plenty of homebuilts with very poor workmanship. How they ever got approved to fly is a mystery to me or perhaps they didn't. When I built my aircraft I was very fussy. I wanted a specific measurement that wasn't on the plans & when asking the designer he said "Dunno, never measured it", though he had other good tips and my aircraft has zero trim tabs anywhere. I've seen a student built ultralight & it looked OK from the outside but they hadn't kept a photo log of the construction so there was no way to see how things were under the skin. I wouldn't trust or fly that one.

 

Women were employed in the UK to build all types of aircraft in WW2. At the time most of the capable men were in the armed forces. The British were very fussy about the build quality. The US mass produced aircraft utilising a number of car manufacturers & the error rate was pretty high. Over 15,000 US airmen died in training accidents before they even got out of the country, & a lot of these were due to manufacture faults.

[facthunter]

I don't believe that kg. re the aircraft quality. the training killed them not the Planes   Minimum control speeds. Nev

[kgwilson]

You are right. I should have said "some" not "a lot". There were 52,651 accidents & 13,873 aircraft lost. Roughly 8% were due to mechanical faults.

[Flightrite]

Every aircraft is built/designed by the hand of man, numerous so called certified flying machines built by so called qualified people have carried its cargo to their graves, nothing new here!

[Thruster88]

The Australian ATSB has produced a comprehensive report into EAB aircraft accidents 1988 to 2010. A snippet is copied below since a link to the report called "Amature Built Aircraft Accidents (part 2)" is not possible due to it being a pdf. Airframe failure not involving the engine is an extremely low factor. It's the pilots choices not the airframe that results in EAB aircraft having such a poor safety record.

 

The NTSB study found the following.
• Amateur-built aircraft account for a disproportionate number of total 
accidents and an even more disproportionate share of fatal accidents when 
compared with similar factory-built aircraft conducting similar flight 
operations. 
• Accident analyses indicate that power plant failures and loss of control in 
flight are the most common amateur-built aircraft accident occurrences by a 
large margin and that accident occurrences are similar for both new and used 
aircraft. 
• Structural failures have not been a common occurrence among amateur-built 
aircraft. 
• In comparison with similar factory-built aircraft, a much higher proportion of 
accidents involving amateur-built aircraft occur early in the operational life of 
the aircraft. 
• A similarly large proportion of amateur-built aircraft accidents occur shortly 
after being purchased by a subsequent owner. 
The findings of the NTSB report about US accidents are consistent with the 
conclusions of the ATSB report about Australian accidents. However, both reports 
also bring unique factors which may provide mutual benefit to all participants in the 
amateur-built aircraft industry.

[BurnieM]

While some incidents are undoubtedly due to a lower build/configuration quality it seems we are also looking at a number of low hour pilots unfamilar with a new aircraft.

 

Edited March 12 by BurnieM

[facthunter]

Lots of builders essentially cease flying when they are building due to Time and Money issues. An owner built Plane is More of an unknown that a certified one is and generally harder to fly. Small planes are more touchy than Larger and heavier ones are. Nev

[rodgerc]

Over the years a number of fellow pilots have told me they wouldn’t be comfortable flying an aircraft that they personally built…My counter comment these days is, I’m not comfortable flying a plane I didn’t build.

 

I’m exceedingly comfortable having my build quality and standard of finish measured against anything coming out of a “factory”.

[facthunter]

Even though I'm woodwork trained A wooden plane wouldn't be my first choice, Fabric covered steel tube OK watch for just in older examples.. Al sheet ok Particularly the RV as the holes are so accurate you don't need Jigs. IF you build something YOU know how well it's done and if you have doubts, check with experts before Proceeding..  Nev

[rgmwa]

I built mine and I’m confident it was done to a high standard and with care and attention to detail.  It was also inspected several times during the build by my SAAA tech counsellor and obviously again by the CASA Approved Person before it was given its special certificate of airworthiness. It’s as airworthy as any commercial aircraft despite the warning sticker on the instrument panel and the ‘experimental’ banner on the rear bulkhead. 

[onetrack]

The bottom line is, there are very very few aircraft - factory built or home/kit built - that actually fall apart once airborne, due to construction faults that affect the aircrafts integrity.

The vast majority of aircraft that suffer mid-air structural breakup, do so because the pilot makes a serious error in aircraft handling, or exceeds VNE, or the aircraft was improperly maintained, leading to shedding of panels/components. 

Then there are the landing/takeoff upsets that cause loss of the aircraft, and that is probably around 90% pilot error, with the other 10% being engine failures, some of which are maintenance or assembly errors - and some, outright mechanical failure.

[facthunter]

Control system failures would be the thing to avoid. Redundancy in the Pitch axis is Necessary. Attention to throttle linkage and flap asymmetry' You need built in inspection panels. Structural inadequacies will show up as the Plane ages at stress and corrosion points. Bad build or design will concentrate stress at specific places. Every rivet is there for a reason. One not done right will put extra load on others   Nev

[djpacro]

On 13/03/2026 at 7:48 AM, Thruster88 said:

The Australian ATSB has produced a comprehensive report into EAB aircraft accidents 1988 to 2010. A snippet is copied below since a link to the report called "Amature Built Aircraft Accidents (part 2)" is not possible due to it being a pdf. Airframe failure not involving the engine is an extremely low factor. It's the pilots choices not the airframe that results in EAB aircraft having such a poor safety record.

 

The NTSB study found the following.
• Amateur-built aircraft account for a disproportionate number of total 
accidents and an even more disproportionate share of fatal accidents when 
compared with similar factory-built aircraft conducting similar flight 
operations. 
• Accident analyses indicate that power plant failures and loss of control in 
flight are the most common amateur-built aircraft accident occurrences by a 
large margin and that accident occurrences are similar for both new and used 
aircraft. 
• Structural failures have not been a common occurrence among amateur-built 
aircraft. 
• In comparison with similar factory-built aircraft, a much higher proportion of 
accidents involving amateur-built aircraft occur early in the operational life of 
the aircraft. 
• A similarly large proportion of amateur-built aircraft accidents occur shortly 
after being purchased by a subsequent owner. 
The findings of the NTSB report about US accidents are consistent with the 
conclusions of the ATSB report about Australian accidents. However, both reports 
also bring unique factors which may provide mutual benefit to all participants in the 
amateur-built aircraft industry.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2007/ar-2007-043(2) for the page where you can download the pdf

or go direct to the pdf https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/4097175/ar-2007-043_2__final.pdf

 

The one that caught my eye was:

"Loss of aircraft control led to 25 per cent of all amateur-built accidents, slightly more than for factory-built aircraft accidents, however, the loss of control accident rate was over four times higher. Serious injury was three times more likely after loss of control in amateur-built aircraft accidents than for factory-built. Loss of control accidents were more likely to be from aircraft handling issues where pilots had relatively less experience on the aircraft type, and to a lesser extent, engine problems. Aircraft loss of control was more likely to occur in the initial climb phase of flight in amateur-built accidents."