Message
Jeff,
Thank you for reiterating the company line,
and for helping make my point for me. You say,
"As a qualified Lancair instructor pilot and
FAA designated pilot examiner I can say that the [Lancair IVP] is safe in the
hands of a competent pilot who makes good decisions."
The real question then is, who is a
competent pilot, and which ones make [only?] good decisions?
If the plane(s) can only be "safely" flown
by pilots competent at a certain level, and only if they always make good
decisions... then obviously, the ranks of qualified pilots is substantially
reduced from those who might otherwise "safely" fly other planes. This is
generally true for any high performance plane. What I am asserting, however, is
not that it is possible to eventually train every owner/pilot of a plane to be
competent and make good decisions (because such is not possible), but rather
that even ultra-high-performance aircraft can be made more stable, and therefore
"safer" to fly... or put another way - such a safer plane makes it possible for
more less-competent pilots (and less consistent decision makers) to more safely
fly the plane. Putting "safely flying the plane" another way... I mean that a
broader spectrum of pilots can fly the plane with a reduced risk of incident or
accident.
I do not intend for my comments to
be inflammatory. Rather, I truly think I am just stating the obvious regarding
the relative "safety" of the Lancair aircraft. Please keep in mind, there
is nothing inherently wrong with purposefully designing a neutrally stable
airplane. For example, aerobatic planes are designed somewhat that way, to
accomplish a certain mission. A pilot would be a fool to try to fly such a plane
on such a mission without proper training and a reasonable assurance that they
possessed the competency and decision making skills that you refer to. But it is
foolhardy (if not deceptive) to say that just because a pilot like Dave Morss
can safely fly a Legacy at Reno, that an average pilot can therefore fly the
airplane in normal cross-country flight. We would never say that about a Bearcat
or a P51 or an NXT... why then a Lancair? For in reality, the average Lancair
pilot really wants a fast, sexy, cross-country airplane, and doesn't really want
to have to be aerobatic proficient to do so safely (I'm not saying the Lancair
is intended as an aerobatic plane - I just didn't know how else to make my point
about proficiency).
Again, your point is completely valid. How
many instrument rated pilots have no business flying IFR because they are not
proficient in so flying a plane? Yes, with proper training, and thus hopefully
competence and good decision making skills, every instrument rated pilot should
be "safe" to fly IFR. But does that really happen? An honest pilot knows his
limitations, and will remain within them. As an example; the allure of the
modern glass cockpit is that intermittent IFR pilots will be able to fly the
"highway in the sky" with a casual disregard for ongoing training in competency
and good decision making habits. I doubt that will ever be the case. It is my
"opinion" that the same is true for planes like Lancair. Yes, there are quite a
number of people who can safely fly them. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily
the same demographic of people who can afford them, let alone who buy
them.
Let's face it. Lancair (as any company) is
in business to sell more planes. After the initial rush of wide-eyed pilots
drooling over such performance numbers, the reality of the time to build, the
cost of doing so, and the qualifications to safely fly it, quickly diminishes
the pool of likely customers. Lancair learned that lesson well in the two place
market, and thus the creation of the 4P. I believe it is safe to infer, they
later determined there are a heck of a lot more pilots out there who would fly a
fixed gear version if they didn't have to give up too much performance, and thus
the birth of the ES. Then they surmised there are also a lot of pilots who would
still go fixed-gear if they could also have pressurization. They also realized
that the high-performance 2- place market still had a vacuum, and they developed
the Legacy (which appears to be a phenomenal bird). All to say, they are
striving to develop more of a market by meeting the needs of a broader base of
customers. Again, that is what every company strives to do. All I'm suggesting
is that there may be a little bit of the "can't see the forest from the trees"
at play here. Just like with the ES, I don't think that Lancair would give up
much at all if they added in a bit more stability and controllability in their
airplanes - to make it more appealing to a larger segment of the potential
customer base. I know that if they had done so, I probably would have bought one
(my size not withstanding).
I think we can all agree, there are four
primary factors determining whether someone will buy/build/fly a kit plane
(maybe not in order): total cost, time to build, and flight characteristics
- which includes both performance and safety. I think that Lancair is doing
fine on the first, working hard on the second, has 'nailed' the third, but has
room for improvement on the fourth. A triple isn't bad, but I believe they can
easily hit a home run.
I hope they do.
RA
Rienk,
Thank you for your reply. Everyone has opinions on this forum about
everything under the sun. Some are qualified by training and experience to
offer their analysis of the facts-- many are not.
You have made some rather serious allegations about the Lancair IVP's
safety record and its aerdynamic characteristics and flying qualities,
but at the end of the day you offer no factual evidence to support these
opinions nor any personal qualifications to support your opinons other than to
say "you have talked to a few people." I hope when you get
the Envoy flying, you and your product do not get flamed based on unsupported
claims such as these. As George Braly and company would say, "show me the
data." You have not and cannot because there is no data to support your
claims. If you are interested in the Lancair accident record, I
suggest you visit www.ntsb.gov or
attend the annual Lancair forum at Oshkosh where the past year's accident and
lessons learned are reviewed.
After building and flying a Lancair IVP for over 3 years and 700 hours, I
can say with some authority that there are no stability/ controllability
issues that I am aware of. As a qualified Lancair instructor pilot and FAA
designated pilot examiner I can say that the aircraft is safe in the hands of
a competent pilot who makes good decisions.
Regards,
Jeff Edwards
Lancair IVP
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 5/19/2006
|