X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 01:57:54 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.205] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c5) with ESMTP id 940804 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 11 May 2005 22:55:18 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.233.184.205; envelope-from=limadelta@gmail.com Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 67so890369wri for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 19:54:31 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=HMmEiifbEfiyf0ZFqj9BAWijrBmiDI6TQ+0L51tUBbMXkPmfHDVcjmVMMIOM8Yj3M0gbhlw2ZGiZxthWAuh3wg/eC9uAOZ4pBbbX1HlgB+0QnkBiIot0EX/wM8gqn0IC8+028d/HWXQdNbftDko+x2cbsEoh7WNgiPguS4y5LAI= Received: by 10.54.44.46 with SMTP id r46mr666743wrr; Wed, 11 May 2005 19:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.46.39 with HTTP; Wed, 11 May 2005 19:54:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 22:54:31 -0400 From: Dan O'Brien Reply-To: Dan O'Brien X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Shannon's Accident Summarized In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1204_21196527.1115866471779" References: ------=_Part_1204_21196527.1115866471779 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline >=20 > Another statistic quoted by the Kings, " 7 out of 8 accidents are pilot= =20 > error." The other accidents are mechanically related. "Only 1 out of 8=20 > accidents, the airplane let down the pilot, the other 7 the pilot let dow= n=20 > the airplane. > In our homebuilts, my guess is a large percentage of the mechanical=20 > failures our the fault of the builder/mechanics lack of knowledge or lack= of=20 > attention. > Maybe that why, when I hear of a Lancair going down, I assume it's not= =20 > some unforeseen mechanical failure. I assume it's an error in judgement,= =20 > either in flight or in maintenance. If only the people flying these=20 > beautiful airplanes were as reliable as the airplanes themselves. >=20 Mike, I couldn't agree with you more. I made a post awhile back about=20 Lancair accidents based on a review of Lee Metcalf's very helpful accident= =20 database. From 8/89 through 5/04 there were 85 accidents, 35 of which=20 involved fatalities. I classified the 35 fatal accidents by 1) pilot error,= =20 2) maintenance error, or 3) bad luck. I thought I was I was charitable=20 toward pilots in deciding that some accidents were bad luck. By my=20 classifications, 5 of the 35 fatal accidents were bad luck. Of these, one= =20 was a heart attack, something that could happen while driving your car.=20 Another involved water in the carburetor float bowl (detectable during some= =20 pre-flight???). A third appears to have involved a stall/spin upon loss of= =20 power, which might have had a better outcome. Another involved an engine=20 fire, and another the failure to reach the runway while trying to return to= =20 the airport after loss of power. My conclusion was that Lancair pilots are not predisposed toward bad luck= =20 (though I don't know total hours flown, so I don't have a statistical=20 analysis to back this up.) There were no alarm bells raised about the=20 airplane that I detected (though I'm certainly no expert). Unfortunately,= =20 however, Lancair pilots DO seem to be predisposed toward bad judgement. It= =20 seemed hard to read the accident reports any other way. Small planes generally are 10 times less safe than commercial planes in th= e=20 sense that they experience one fatality about every hundred thousand hours,= =20 compared to one every million hours in commercial planes. If we could take= =20 out the 7 out of 8 times the pilot lets the plane down, we could approach= =20 the commercial safety record. (I realize that some of the commercial=20 accidents are also pilot error, so it's a little unfair to say that we coul= d=20 take that out but that they couldn't. My point is that that if one has good= =20 judgement, small planes are pretty darn safe. Lancairs could be too.) ------=_Part_1204_21196527.1115866471779 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Another statistic quoted by the Kings, " 7 out of 8 accidents are= pilot error."  The other accidents are mechanically related= .  "Only 1 out of 8 accidents, the airplane let down the pilot, t= he other 7 the pilot let down the airplane.
 
In our homebuilts, my guess is a large percentage of the mechanical fa= ilures our the fault of the builder/mechanics lack of knowledge or lack of = attention.
 
Maybe that why, when I hear of a Lancair going down, I assume it's not= some unforeseen mechanical failure.  I assume it's an error in judgem= ent, either in flight or in maintenance.  If only the people flying th= ese beautiful airplanes were as reliable as the airplanes themselves.
 
Mike, I couldn't agree with you more.&= nbsp; I made a post awhile back about Lancair accidents based on a review o= f Lee Metcalf's very helpful accident database.  From 8/89 through 5/0= 4 there were 85 accidents, 35 of which involved fatalities.  I classif= ied the 35 fatal accidents by 1) pilot error, 2) maintenance error, or = ;3) bad luck.  I thought I was I was charitable toward pilots in = deciding that some accidents were bad luck.  By my classifications, 5 = of the 35 fatal accidents were bad luck.  Of these, one was a heart at= tack, something that could happen while driving your car. Another involved = water in the carburetor float bowl (detectable during some pre-flight???). = A third appears to have involved a stall/spin upon loss of power, which mig= ht have had a better outcome. Another involved an engine fire, and another = the failure to reach the runway while trying to return to the airport after= loss of power.
 
My conclusion was that Lancair pilots are not  predisposed toward= bad luck (though I don't know total hours flown, so I don't have a statist= ical analysis to back this up.)  There were no alarm bells raised abou= t the airplane that I detected (though I'm certainly no expert).  = ;  Unfortunately, however, Lancair pilots DO seem to be predispos= ed toward bad judgement.  It seemed hard to read the accident rep= orts any other way.
 
Small planes generally are 10 times less safe than commercial pla= nes in the sense that they experience one fatality about every hundred thou= sand hours, compared to one every million hours in commercial planes.&= nbsp; If we could take out the 7 out of 8 times the pilot lets the plane do= wn, we could approach the commercial safety record.  (I realize that s= ome of the commercial accidents are also pilot error, so it's a little unfa= ir to say that we could take that out but that they couldn't.  My poin= t is that that if one has good judgement, small planes are pretty darn= safe.  Lancairs could be too.) =20
------=_Part_1204_21196527.1115866471779--