X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:45:41 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with ESMTP id 3087777 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:16:52 -0400 Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r10.8.) id q.c28.3bf98c96 (37564) for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:16:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtprly-ma03.mx.aol.com (smtprly-ma03.mx.aol.com [64.12.207.142]) by cia-mb04.mx.aol.com (v121_r2.11) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMB041-92bc48ae137b332; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:16:43 -0400 Received: from webmail-nc07 (webmail-nc07.sim.aol.com [207.200.67.28]) by smtprly-ma03.mx.aol.com (v121_r2.12) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYMA033-5c5548ae13743b; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:16:36 -0400 References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: some thoughts on accidents X-Original-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:16:36 -0400 X-AOL-IP: 68.188.79.57 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CAD20BDB74FD28_864_6911_webmail-nc07.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 38491-STANDARD Received: from 68.188.79.57 by webmail-nc07.sysops.aol.com (207.200.67.28) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:16:36 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CAD20BDB159EF0-864-3838@webmail-nc07.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO ----------MB_8CAD20BDB74FD28_864_6911_webmail-nc07.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" You are kidding, right? Go to youtube.com and type in "Lancair low pass" and= =C2=A0watch=C2=A0at the knuckleheads buzzing sailboats, etc. The responsible= Lancair pilot is not in that airplane.=20 What we should be asking is what do the pilots with more than 1000 Lancair h= ours in type have in common. Why don't they have any accidents? I think you=20= will find that they approach flying very differently than the accident pilot= s.=20 We have had a number of Lancair pilots who have attempted IMC without being=20= current or even having an instrument rating; Lancair pilots have run their a= irplane out of fuel and crashed; Lancair pilots have attempted areobatics in= the traffic pattern with fatal results, etc. Three accident pilots this yea= r flew into thunderstorms. Airplane design problem? Hardly. Responsibility?= =C2=A0 Sorely lacking. But the same is true of all GA. GA pilots do not want= =C2=A0to abide by the thin veneer of regulation in Part 61 or 91. Most GA pi= lots do not even know a modicum of the regs that affect their flights. Think= I am pulling this out of thin air?... take a checkride tomorrow... would yo= u pass?=C2=A0 Would more regulation change things? No.=20 Does the FAA really care that Lancairs have had a few too many accidents thi= s year (and btw-- what=C2=A0is the standard of measure) ? Answer No. They do= n't enforce the regulations in place now. Does the insurance industry really= care? No. If=C2=A0 the loss rate is unacceptable they will not=C2=A0insure=20= the market. Everyone (Dave included--sorry to be picking on=20 you) thinks the FAA, EAA, insurance industry, someone else will fix the prob= lem. Got a BIG clue here --they won't. The person that will fix the problem=20= is the one that flies your airplane. The longer I am in this business (accident investigation and flight training= ) the more I think the responsible pilot is the exception rather than the ru= le.=20 Is it riskier to fly a Lancair than a spam can? Probably not. What type of a= ircraft stalled and crashed the day before the Legacy at Osksoh? A Piper Tri= Pacer--certainly not your average high performance aircraft. I don't hear a= nyone complaining that the Tri Pacer is "dangerous" because of its stall cha= racterisitics. Only 12 reported Tri PAcer accidents so far this year. 21 RV'= s. Just about every aircraft will stall and when you do it at less than a co= uple hundred feet the results are as advertised. Can we make the Lancairs st= all proof? No. Would improving the stall characteristics of the Legacy have=20= changed the outcome of the Oshkosh accident? No.=20 There is way too much speculation on this subject here. The NTSB reports spe= ak for themselves. I have read all 146 reports and they are not a good refle= ction of our Lancair communirty. Go to www.ntsb.gov Read them. Be informed.=20 Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Taylor, David To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 6:53 pm Subject: [LML] Re: some thoughts on accidents Everybody keeps saying the same thing about training and taking these airpla= nes seriously and th en proceeds to chastise the Lancair population for carelessness and lack of=20= judgement.=C2=A0=20 =C2=A0 I do not understand this.=C2=A0 Each and every Lancair pilot I know is extre= mely serious about his plane and takes flying and planning and weather and t= raining extremely seriously.=C2=A0 (Anyone who can afford these things is by= definition responsible.) =C2=A0 In other words, THIS IS NOT THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM AND ALL THESE WARN= INGS WILL DO NOTHING TO REDUCE CRASHES. =C2=A0 I think that the problem lies elsewhere=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6.. =C2=A0 David T. Legacy RG =C2=A0 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Art J= ensen Sent: Thu, August 21, 2008 11:03 To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: some thoughts on accidents =C2=A0 How many pilots out there have 1000 hours in type?=C2=A0 Not many, but by no= w they know their airplanes and they have been making good decisions, so far= !=C2=A0 Most of us who own a Lancair today will not keep the airplane long e= nough to fly 1000 hours.=C2=A0 It will be sold to someone and the clock will= start ticking again.=C2=A0 Then the new owner has to get through that first= 200 hours where they are at the greatest risk. =C2=A0 Everyone who has commented so far seems to recognize that training is probab= ly the answer=C2=A0to reducing accidents. =C2=A0 Art 0 pilots > 1000 hours in type Lancair of the 108 reorted Lancair=C2=A0accident pilots 40.7% had less than 51 hours= time in type; 75.9% had less than 201 hours time in type. if you have more than 1000 hours time in type-- keep on doing what you are d= oing..... Regards, Jeff Edwards =C2=A0 ----------MB_8CAD20BDB74FD28_864_6911_webmail-nc07.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" You are kidding, right? Go to youtube.com and type in "Lancair low pass" and=  watch at the knuckleheads buzzing sailboats, etc. The responsible= Lancair pilot is not in that airplane.

What we should be asking is what do the pilots with more than 1000 Lancai= r hours in type have in common. Why don't they have any accidents? I think y= ou will find that they approach flying very differently than the accident pi= lots.

We have had a number of Lancair pilots who have attempted IMC without being=20= current or even having an instrument rating; Lancair pilots have run their a= irplane out of fuel and crashed; Lancair pilots have attempted areobatics in= the traffic pattern with fatal results, etc. Three accident pilots this yea= r flew into thunderstorms. Airplane design problem? Hardly. Responsibility?&= nbsp; Sorely lacking. But the same is true of all GA. GA pilots do not want&= nbsp;to abide by the thin veneer of regulation in Part 61 or 91. Most GA pil= ots do not even know a modicum of the regs that affect their flights. Think=20= I am pulling this out of thin air?... take a checkride tomorrow... would you= pass?  Would more regulation change things? No.

Does the FAA really care that Lancairs have had a few too many accidents thi= s year (and btw-- what is the standard of measure) ? Answer No. They do= n't enforce the regulations in place now. Does the insurance industry really= care? No. If  the loss rate is unacceptable they will not insure=20= the market. Everyone (Dave included--so rry to be picking on you) thinks the FAA, EAA, insurance industry, someone e= lse will fix the problem. Got a BIG clue here --they won't. The person that=20= will fix the problem is the one that flies your airplane.

The longer I am in this business (accident investigation and flight training= ) the more I think the responsible pilot is the exception rather than the ru= le.

Is it riskier to fly a Lancair than a spam can? Probably not. What type of a= ircraft stalled and crashed the day before the Legacy at Osksoh? A Piper Tri= Pacer--certainly not your average high performance aircraft. I don't hear a= nyone complaining that the Tri Pacer is "dangerous" because of its stall cha= racterisitics. Only 12 reported Tri PAcer accidents so far this year. 21 RV'= s. Just about every aircraft will stall and when you do it at less than a co= uple hundred feet the results are as advertised. Can we make the Lancairs st= all proof? No. Would improving the stall characteristics of the Legacy have=20= changed the outcome of the Oshkosh accident? No.

There is way too much speculation on this subject here. The NTSB reports spe= ak for themselves. I have read all 146 reports and they are not a good refle= ction of our Lancair communirty. Go to www.n= tsb.gov Read them. Be informed.

Jeff


-----Original Message-----
From: Taylor, David <dtaylor@crescentpark.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 6:53 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: some thoughts on accidents

Everybody keeps saying the same thing about=20= training and taking these airplanes seriously and then proce eds to chastise the Lancair population for carelessness and lack of judgemen= t. 
 
I do not understand this.  Each and eve= ry Lancair pilot I know is extremely serious about his plane and takes flyin= g and planning and weather and training extremely seriously.  (Anyone w= ho can afford these things is by definition responsible.)
 
In other words, THIS IS NOT THE ROOT CAUSE O= F THE PROBLEM AND ALL THESE WARNINGS WILL DO NOTHING TO REDUCE CRASHES.
 
I think that the problem lies elsewhere=E2= =80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6..
 
David T.
Legacy RG
 
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Art Jen= sen
Sent: Thu, August 21, 2008 11:03
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: some thoughts on accidents
 
How many pilots out there have 1000 hours in type?&nb= sp; Not many, but by now they know their airplanes and they have been making= good decisions, so far!  Most of us who own a Lancair today will not k= eep the airplane long enough to fly 1000 hours.  It will be sold to som= eone and the clock will start ticking again.  Then the new owner has to= get through that first 200 hours where they are at the greatest risk.
 
Everyone who has commented so far seems to recogniz= e that training is probably the answer to reducing accidents.
 
Art
0 pilots > 1000 hour= s in type Lancair

of the 108 reorted Lancair accident pilots 40.7% had less than 51 hours= time in type; 75.9% had less than 201 hours time in type.
if you have more than 1000 hours time in type-- keep on doing what you are d= oing.....

Regards,

Jeff Edwards

 
Get=20= the MapQuest Toolbar. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices & More! ----------MB_8CAD20BDB74FD28_864_6911_webmail-nc07.sysops.aol.com--