X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:00:53 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m20.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.1] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c3) with ESMTP id 741115 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:30:12 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.1; envelope-from=RWolf99@aol.com Received: from RWolf99@aol.com by imo-m20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r5.5.) id q.154.5a5dee61 (4214) for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:29:22 -0400 (EDT) From: RWolf99@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <154.5a5dee61.306c9d72@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:29:22 EDT Subject: Re: Noncertified Aircraft X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1127957362" X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5017 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1127957362 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill Hannahan has some good points. When we compare amateur-built experimental aircraft to certified aircraft, we need to compare apples to apples. 1) It's not the airplane's fault if the pilot smacks it into a mountain. 2) It's not the airplane's fault if the VFR pilot flies into IFR and crashes. It's probably not the airplane's fault if the IFR pilot scud-runs and crashes, although handling qualities could potentially play a factor. 3) It's probably not the airplane's fault if the pilot runs out of gas, but it might be. 4) It's not the airplane's fault that an AD was not complied with and the propeller fell off, the CG shifted out-of-limits aft, and the pilot lost control. Or is it? AD compliance is not mandatory for experimentals. (This is what happened to N320L, an early Lancair 320 factory plane.) So a more exhaustive examination of accident statistics might reveal that many experimental airplane crashes are caused by pilot issues, not aircraft issues. Still, the conventional wisdom is that experimentals are less safe. I'd be interested in an accident survey that goes back, say, ten years and compares aircraft-caused crashes and not pilot-caused crashes. (Hmmm, how do we count handling-quality-related crashes? Maintenance-related crashes? You see, it's not so easy.) Bill challenges us to use the freedoms provided under the experimental aircraft regulations to design and build SAFER airplanes. I think he's 100% right about this. Who will be the first company to offer us the SAFEST kitplane, not just the highest performance or fastest to build? You'd think there would be a market opportunity here. After all, it works for Volvo. (although I'm not really sure that Volvo is safest, but that's what I keep being told...) - Rob Wolf LNC2 80% -------------------------------1127957362 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Bill Hannahan has some good points. When we compare amateur-built= =20 experimental aircraft to certified aircraft, we need to compare apples to=20 apples.

1) It's not the airplane's fault if the pilot smacks it into a=20 mountain.

2) It's not the airplane's fault if the VFR pilot flies into IFR=20= and=20 crashes. It's probably not the airplane's fault if the IFR pilot scud-= runs=20 and crashes, although handling qualities could potentially play a factor.

3) It's probably not the airplane's fault if the pilot runs out o= f=20 gas, but it might be.

4) It's not the airplane's fault that an AD was not complied with= and=20 the propeller fell off, the CG shifted out-of-limits aft, and the pilot lost= =20 control. Or is it? AD compliance is not mandatory for=20 experimentals. (This is what happened to N320L, an early Lancair 320=20 factory plane.)

So a more exhaustive examination of accident statistics might reveal th= at=20 many experimental airplane crashes are caused by pilot issues, not aircraft=20 issues. Still, the conventional wisdom is that experimentals are less=20 safe. I'd be interested in an accident survey that goes back, say, ten= =20 years and compares aircraft-caused crashes and not pilot-caused crashes.&nbs= p;=20 (Hmmm, how do we count handling-quality-related crashes? =20 Maintenance-related crashes? You see, it's not so easy.)

Bill challenges us to use the freedoms provided under the experimental=20 aircraft regulations to design and build SAFER airplanes. I think he's= =20 100% right about this. Who will be the first company to offer us the=20 SAFEST kitplane, not just the highest performance or fastest to build? = =20 You'd think there would be a market opportunity here. After all, it wo= rks=20 for Volvo. (although I'm not really sure that Volvo is safest, but that's wh= at I=20 keep being told...)

- Rob Wolf

LNC2 80%

-------------------------------1127957362--