The Honest Answer

Experimental amateur-built aircraft are, on average, about three times more dangerous per flight hour than certified general aviation. The E-AB fleet averages roughly 3.2 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours, compared to about 1.0 for certified GA. That is a real difference and you should not pretend it does not exist.

But that average hides enormous variation. The safest experimental aircraft types approach or match certified GA safety rates. The most dangerous ones are many times worse. Your choice of aircraft type, how you build it, and how you fly it matter far more than the “experimental” label on the airworthiness certificate.

The Overall Numbers

That 27.0% fatal rate means that roughly one in four experimental aircraft accidents results in at least one death. Three-quarters of the time, the pilot walks away (or at least survives). This ratio varies wildly by aircraft type and accident cause.

What Actually Kills People

The top causes of fatal accidents in experimental aircraft, ranked by total deaths:

Notice the pattern: the deadliest causes are pilot decisions, not mechanical failures.

23% of Fatals Are Clearly Preventable

We identified 554 fatal accidents caused by showing off at low altitude, VFR flight into instrument conditions, poor judgment/decision-making, medical incapacitation, and spatial disorientation. That is 23% of all fatal E-AB accidents.

These are not bad-luck accidents. These are situations where the pilot made a clearly identifiable wrong decision. If you removed these from the data entirely, the E-AB fatal accident rate would drop significantly — narrowing the gap with certified GA considerably.

This is not meant to blame victims. It is meant to show that a disciplined pilot who avoids these specific traps has a meaningfully different risk profile than the fleet average suggests.

The Safest Experimental Aircraft

Slow, forgiving STOL designs dominate the safety rankings. When these aircraft have accidents, the pilot almost always survives.

See the full ranked list of safest experimental aircraft

The Most Dangerous

Fast, composite, retractable-gear aircraft. High cruise speeds mean high-energy impacts. When something goes wrong, it is much harder to walk away.

Engine Failures Are Survivable

Engine failures account for roughly a third of all experimental aircraft accidents. But here is the thing people miss: 83.4% of pilots who have an engine failure survive it. The engine quitting is not what kills you — it is what you do next, and whether you have a place to land.

A significant portion of “engine failures” are actually fuel mismanagement — running a tank dry or selecting the wrong tank. Those are pilot errors with an engine label. Read our full engine failure analysis.

The Test Flight Risk

Test flights and the first 10 hours of operation account for roughly 18.1% of all E-AB accidents. This is the most dangerous period in the life of a homebuilt aircraft — newly built engines are still breaking in, builder errors have not yet been discovered, and the pilot is flying an unfamiliar airplane.

If you are building, this is the part to take most seriously. Use a designated test area with long runways and open terrain. Have a chase pilot. Follow the phase I test plan to the letter. Many builders rush this phase and pay for it.

Compared to Other Things You Do

Context matters. Per exposure hour, experimental aircraft flying is:

• About 3x more dangerous than flying certified GA
• About 10-15x more dangerous per hour than driving a car
• Roughly comparable to motorcycling on public roads
• Much safer than base jumping, wingsuit flying, or free solo climbing

Most people who ride motorcycles do not think of themselves as daredevils. Flying experimental aircraft is in that same general risk category — elevated above daily life, but something that many thousands of people do safely for decades.

What You Can Control

The data consistently shows that the biggest safety lever is not the aircraft — it is the pilot. Here is what moves the needle:

• Choose a forgiving aircraft. Slow STOL types have single-digit fatal percentages. Fast composite ships can exceed 50%. The aircraft you pick sets your baseline risk.
• Never push weather. VFR into IMC is 85%+ fatal across the fleet. Just do not do it.
• Keep the aerobatics high. Low-altitude showing off accounts for a disproportionate share of fatals. Aerobatics are fun — do them at altitude.
• Build the fuel system right. Roughly 20% of all engine-related accidents are fuel mismanagement or builder fuel system errors.
• Fly regularly. Currency matters. The accident data shows that infrequent flyers are overrepresented in the statistics.
• Always have an out. Plan routes with forced landing options. Most engine failures are survivable — if you have somewhere to put it down.

So, Are Kit Planes Safe?

Kit planes can be safe. A Zenith CH 750 or Kitfox flown by a conservative, current pilot who builds carefully and stays out of weather is one of the safer ways to fly. A fast composite ship pushed into IMC by an overconfident pilot is one of the most dangerous things in general aviation.

The experimental aircraft community has a safety problem, but it is not the one most people assume. The problem is not that the airplanes are poorly built or inherently flawed. The problem is that some pilots make choices that the data clearly shows are fatal — and keep making them.

The tools on this site exist to help you understand those risks before you build or buy: explore all aircraft types, compare types side-by-side, estimate your personal risk, and compare engine reliability.

Important Caveats

• E-AB flight hour estimates are approximate. The FAA does not track experimental aircraft hours precisely, so per-hour rates involve some estimation.
• Fatal percentage measures what happens when an accident occurs, not how often accidents happen.
• These are NTSB-reported accidents only. Minor incidents that do not meet NTSB reporting thresholds are not included.
• Your personal risk depends on your training, currency, maintenance practices, and decision-making — not just fleet averages.
• This analysis should not be the sole basis for any aircraft purchase or build decision. Consult experienced builders, EAA chapters, and flight instructors.