X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:19:17 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp110.plus.mail.re2.yahoo.com ([206.190.53.35] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.2) with SMTP id 1552744 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:40:17 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.190.53.35; envelope-from=sseffern@yahoo.com Received: (qmail 48987 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2006 20:39:56 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MIMEOLE; b=2GxBD3YvypGdUUgXypl403ZRlNFUYCQXrDMD6k4lFPeE7vXnhWwaN0gijm/gLQMGPD9LmM1ZF7skoH+c1FUxTNrPJwLD9BVN1Lyf6O9l/OkGBNUnmf/+BwoHO7aRIIEogbwFtVCxmvP1ByDXDSbC5Jkkhz2T4Pwbss/XTGKKWkE= ; Received: from unknown (HELO MACCDESKTOP) (sseffern@24.183.98.237 with login) by smtp110.plus.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Nov 2006 20:39:56 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: 3Lh9obEVM1mMZ6wSmT0FIT2ILmL2xMS84lOBzNyQXlujn4SIvfDNgxnm7uLpUG6GdjOm6mutACfR167fyZUGNU1PMF3SF1ApLFOego7CHvi1NylhztbOqg-- X-Original-Message-ID: <05ab01c70508$5dfb8370$8301a8c0@MACCDESKTOP> From: "Stuart Seffern" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] FW: turbines X-Original-Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:39:48 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_05A8_01C704D6.12D463D0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_05A8_01C704D6.12D463D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Joe, Well said. With the freedom to advance the art of flying comes personal = responsibility. =20 If you choose to fly with reasonably priced insurance, you should follow = reasonable requirements for safety as determined by the company and the = insurer. This is the way free markets work well to improve technologies and, in = the long run, those advancements make airplanes far safer. Stu Seffern ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Joe Bartels=20 To: Lancair Mailing List=20 Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 12:41 PM Subject: [LML] FW: turbines Joseph C. Bartels, CEO Lancair International, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: Joe Bartels Sent: Fri 11/10/2006 5:33 AM Subject: turbines Marv: Please post the following: Listers: Lancair turbine crashes are as varied as the pilots involved in those = crashes. I am extremely upset by each and every one of those incidents. = We send representatives to virtually all of the crash sites and assist = the FAA and NTSB in the investigations. It is never easy to be part of = that process, but, it does help us all to better understand what = happened so that we can all further learn from the facts of that = incident. Years ago I began the process of working with the insurance industry = to put forth certain standards that would reduce the number of accidents = involving our aircraft. Those standards include 1) building the = aircraft at Lancair OR following its completion, having it inspected, = for insurance purposes, by one of our Lancair approved inspectors; 2) = that the systems remain stock, that is, that there are no modifications = to the airframe which are not pre-approved by our engineering staff; 3) = that the owner/operator receive training through our Lancair sponsored = flight training program (HPATS). That program includes a) initial = training; b) recurrency training 6 months thereafter; c) recurrency = training 6 months thereafter; and, d) annually thereafter. This was = not a singular system thought of by myself or anyone at Lancair for the = purpose of limiting the experimental enjoyment of the airframe. It was = so that AIG Insurance would provide coverage to a series of aircraft = that, to that point, had not and would not have received airframe = coverage. While training does not guarantee safe operation of an aircraft, it = greatly improves the chances that the pilot will fly as he has been = trained, and in the face of an emergency will survive. =20 What happened in Georgia? =20 Simply put, there was a fuel starvation problem that should have = resulted in a safe landing when following standard training taught by = HPAT. =20 What caused the fuel starvation problem? This aircraft had a non-standard fuel system which incorporated two = fuel control valves and a rear mounted auxiliary tank. Was this system approved by Lancair? No it was not. Did the pilot receive HPAT training? No he did not. It appears that he was in control of the aircraft = until he became too slow and stalled/spun into the ground. While I do = not have all of the information at present, it appears that should he = have not have stalled, he might have survived the accident.=20 Was his aircraft powered with a factory overhauled or new engine? No it was not. While none of these facts could singularly be determined to be the = reason for the crash or the fatality, all of these facts can be = interpreted as supportive of why Lancair and AIG insist on inspection, = training and conformity. It is not to control you or drive you from = experimental aircraft. It is instead to give you the best chance of = continuing to enjoy the finest high performance kit aircraft in the = world! Joseph C. Bartels, CEO Lancair International, Inc. ------=_NextPart_000_05A8_01C704D6.12D463D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Joe,
 
Well said.  With the freedom = to advance=20 the art of flying comes personal responsibility.  =
 
If you choose to fly with reasonably = priced=20 insurance, you should follow reasonable requirements for safety as = determined by=20 the company and the insurer.
 
This is the way free markets work well = to improve=20 technologies and, in the long run, those advancements make airplanes far = safer.
 
Stu Seffern
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Joe = Bartels=20
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 = 12:41=20 PM
Subject: [LML] FW: = turbines

 
 
Joseph C. Bartels, = CEO
Lancair International,=20 Inc.

From: Joe Bartels
Sent: = Fri=20 11/10/2006 5:33 AM
Subject: turbines

Marv:
 
Please post the following:
 
Listers:
 
Lancair turbine crashes are as varied as the pilots = involved in=20 those crashes.  I am extremely upset by each and every one of = those=20 incidents.  We send representatives to virtually all of the crash = sites=20 and assist the FAA and NTSB in the investigations.  It is never = easy to=20 be part of that process, but, it does help us all to better understand = what=20 happened so that we can all further learn from the facts of that=20 incident.
 
Years ago I began the process of working with the = insurance=20 industry to put forth certain standards that would reduce the number = of=20 accidents involving our aircraft.  Those standards include 1) = building=20 the aircraft at Lancair OR = following its=20 completion, having it inspected, for insurance purposes, by one of our = Lancair=20 approved inspectors;  2)  that the systems remain stock, = that is,=20 that there are no modifications to the airframe which are not = pre-approved by=20 our engineering staff;  3)  that the owner/operator receive = training=20 through our Lancair sponsored flight training program (HPATS).  = That=20 program includes a)  initial training;  b) recurrency = training 6=20 months thereafter;  c)  recurrency training 6 months = thereafter;=20 and, d)  annually thereafter.  This was not a singular = system=20 thought of by myself or anyone at Lancair for the purpose of limiting = the=20 experimental enjoyment of the airframe.  It was so that AIG = Insurance=20 would provide coverage to a series of aircraft that, to that point, = had not=20 and would not have received airframe coverage.
 
While training does not guarantee safe operation of an = aircraft,=20 it greatly improves the chances that the pilot will fly as he has been = trained, and in the face of an emergency will survive. 
 
What happened in Georgia? 
 
Simply put, there was a fuel starvation problem = that should=20 have resulted in a safe landing when following standard training = taught by=20 HPAT. 
 
What caused the fuel starvation problem?
 
This aircraft had a non-standard fuel system which = incorporated=20 two fuel control valves and a rear mounted auxiliary tank.
 
Was this system approved by Lancair?
 
No it was not.
 
Did the pilot receive HPAT training?
 
No he did not.  It appears that he was in control = of the=20 aircraft until he became too slow and stalled/spun into the = ground. =20 While I do not have all of the information at present, it appears that = should=20 he have not have stalled, he might have survived the=20 accident. 
 
Was his aircraft powered with a factory overhauled or = new=20 engine?
 
No it was not.
 
While none of these facts could singularly be = determined to be=20 the reason for the crash or the fatality, all of these facts can be=20 interpreted as supportive of why Lancair and AIG insist on inspection, = training and conformity.  It is not to control you or drive you = from=20 experimental aircraft.  It is instead to give you the best chance = of=20 continuing to enjoy the finest high performance kit aircraft in the=20 world!
 
Joseph C. Bartels, = CEO
Lancair International,=20 Inc.
------=_NextPart_000_05A8_01C704D6.12D463D0--