X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:01:32 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma02.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.40] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.3) with ESMTP id 5356069 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:30:17 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.40; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaout-ma04.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-ma04.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.4]) by imr-ma02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q0JCTbo3007731 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:29:37 -0500 Received: from [10.46.244.4] (mobile-166-147-113-249.mycingular.net [166.147.113.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mtaout-ma04.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPSA id DF1F5E0000D2; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:29:33 -0500 (EST) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8L1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-9-776624005 X-Original-Message-Id: <1C8E7159-065A-460C-8781-E9E3FE4022D8@aol.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8L1) From: vtailjeff@aol.com Subject: Re: [LML] Re: aopa turbine numbers: $ vs safety X-Original-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:29:29 -0500 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:451026336:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d29044f180cad1582 X-AOL-IP: 166.147.113.249 --Apple-Mail-9-776624005 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Colyn, Over 250 Eclipse 500 aircraft flying for the last four plus years.... Zero f= atal accidents... Many owner flown... Type specific training required by reg= ulation....Recurrent training required by insurance companies. Hmmm....yes I= would say training is a large reason. Jeff Sent from my iPad On Jan 18, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Colyn Case wrote: > Is the bulk of the safety difference explained by better training? e.g. s= im training? >=20 > On Jan 18, 2012, at 6:27 AM, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote: >=20 > one is being installed in an Evo >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: William Miller > To: lml > Sent: Tue, Jan 17, 2012 10:57 am > Subject: [LML] aopa turbine numbers: $ vs safety >=20 > Catching up on some reading, I noticed the survey of turbine aircraft in t= he AOPA Pilot June, 2011. I certainly is a lot of fun to compare my fuel flo= w, cost per hour, maintenance, range, fixed costs, and payload to their numb= ers. Some manufacturers don't even publish their fuel flow with the cruise d= ata. I wonder what that could mean? > Now, if we can just organize ourselves to match their safety record.... m= y airplane is missing a few of the certified(or USNmilspec) requirements, in= cluding egress and escape redundancy, fire detection/suppression/prevention,= and "more successful" complete engine failure procedures.(multi-,BRS,eject,= bail) > I know of one installation of the BRS chute in an ES. Has anyone else ins= talled one? > Bill Miller > IV-P's 450 +45 >=20 --Apple-Mail-9-776624005 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

Colyn,

Over 250 Eclipse 500 aircraft flying for the last four plus years.... Zero fatal accidents... Many owner flown... Type specific training required by regulation....Recurrent training required by insurance companies. Hmmm....yes I would say training is a large reason.

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 18, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Colyn Case <colyncase@earthlink.net> wrote:

Is the bulk of the safety difference explained by better training? e.g. sim training?

On Jan 18, 2012, at 6:27 AM, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote:

one is being installed in an Evo< br>

-----Original Message-----
From: William Miller <cwfmd@yahoo.com>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tue, Jan 17, 2012 10:57 am
Subject: [LML] aopa turbine numbers: $ vs safety

Catching up on some reading, I noticed the survey of turbine aircraft in the AOPA Pilot June, 2011. I certainly is a lot of fun to compare my fuel flow, cost per hour, maintenance, range, fixed costs, and payload to their numbers. Some manufacturers don't even publish their fuel flow with the cruise data. I wonder what that could mean?

Now, if we can just organize ourselves to match their safety record.... my airplane is missing a few of the certified(or USNmilspec) requirements, including egress and escape redundancy, fire detection/suppression/prevention, and "more successful" complete engine failure procedures.(multi-,BRS,eject, bail)

I know of one installation of the BRS chute in an ES. Has anyone else installed one?

Bill Miller

IV-P's 450 +45

--Apple-Mail-9-776624005--