X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:51:47 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from bay0-omc2-s35.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.171] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.10) with ESMTP id 3282033 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:32:29 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.54.246.171; envelope-from=joscales98@hotmail.com Received: from BAY124-DS4 ([207.46.11.159]) by bay0-omc2-s35.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:31:53 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [75.81.226.134] X-Originating-Email: [joscales98@hotmail.com] X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: joscales98@hotmail.com From: "Jim Scales" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Safety in our Community of Lancairs X-Original-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:31:50 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0042_01C94195.9785F140" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.60.0053.2200 In-Reply-To: Seal-Send-Time: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:31:50 -0600 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2008 17:31:53.0198 (UTC) FILETIME=[E3BE80E0:01C941C7] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C94195.9785F140 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My $.02 concerning Lancair flying and how to make it safer. I would look for a correlation amongst the following: A. Total Time Before beginning to fly Lancairs. (TTB) B. Quality of Time Before beginning to fly Lancairs (QTB) C. Time in type Before the Accident. (TBA) or Without Accident (TWA) D. Training in Type Before the Accident (TTBA) E. Pilots' Reluctance to Believe they are not at the highest skill level = needed to fly their slick, fast, pretty airplanes (PRB) Reasoning: Low TTB has to be a problem but not necessarily all the problem. If QTB = includes mostly 152, Tomahawk, 172, Cherokee time then that would = probably make low TTB more significant. Put that together with low TBA = and you have a very risky and almost (after the fact) predictable = situation. High TTB, with the QTB including Lances, light twins, 182's, Bonanzas, = etc. seems to predict a greater chance of success just about regardless = of TBA and would indicate that there might have been factors other than = just seat time involved. Gathering data on those who have not had accidents might bear this out = in a general way. I know there are some glaring exceptions to this very = simple line of thought but that only proves that no one is immune from = flawed thought processes or sub-par performance at any given time. I fly a Super ES. I look at my own log book and see: 800 hours TTB. = QTB included 250 hours in 182's, 100 hours in Piper Lances, with the = majority of the earlier hours in 172's and Piper Archers. TWA is just = shy of 1000. I am sure there are a lot of Lancair drivers out there who = have better numbers than these. I am also sure there are a quite a = number who have less than these. Trying to reduce the complexities of aircraft accidents to pure math is, = in my simple mind, not only not possible but not all that useful. A = general connection between low time, inadequate, poor or no training = (TTBA) and the level of skills necessary to fly whatever plane was = crashed is probably the best you can get. The general conclusion after = throwing out the oddball freaky accidents will probably be that high = quality, type specific, regularly scheduled training will significantly = enhance the Lancair safety numbers. For that to happen the pilots need = to be convinced that training is in theirs and their families' best = interests. Pilots tend to have a very high regard for their talents and abilities = (the PRB aspect of the issue). Getting them to realize that, even = though they fly that airplane 100+ hours a year, they still need regular = training is a big job. Probably more difficult than the training itself. = Stopping someone from doing something that will kill him is impossible = when that person does not recognize the danger in the = decision/action/situation. I think the intellectual exercise of trying to produce a formula based = on some statistics is probably useful at some level. However, = ultimately, the conclusion will be one that we have discussed many = times: training, training, training. A traveling professional group = that could be scheduled by the individual pilot by region would be a big = step forward. Just a thought. I know I would fly a couple of hundred = miles to participate in a day of training periodically.=20 I offer no other solutions.=20 I realize this has been a somewhat rambling discourse and is probably = full of technical mistakes. It is entirely my opinion and I take = responsibility for the content. Flame suit on. =20 Jim Scales =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C94195.9785F140 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My $.02 concerning Lancair flying and how to make it safer.
 
I would look for a correlation amongst the following:
 
A. Total Time Before beginning to fly Lancairs. (TTB)
B. Quality of Time Before beginning to fly Lancairs  = (QTB)
C. Time in type Before the Accident. (TBA) or Without Accident = (TWA)
D. Training in Type Before the Accident (TTBA)
E. Pilots' Reluctance to Believe they are not at the highest skill = level=20 needed to fly their slick, fast, pretty airplanes (PRB)
 
Reasoning:
 
Low TTB has to be a problem but not necessarily all the = problem.  If=20 QTB includes mostly 152, Tomahawk, 172, Cherokee time then that would = probably=20 make low TTB  more significant.  Put that together with low = TBA and=20 you have a very risky and almost (after the fact) predictable = situation.
 
High TTB, with the QTB including Lances, light twins, 182's, = Bonanzas, etc.=20 seems to predict a greater chance of success just about regardless of = TBA and=20 would indicate that there might have been factors other than just seat = time=20 involved.
 
Gathering data on those who have not had accidents might bear this = out in a=20 general way.  I know there are some glaring exceptions to this very = simple=20 line of thought but that only proves that no one is immune from flawed = thought=20 processes or sub-par performance at any given time.
 
I fly a Super ES.  I look at my own log book and see:  = 800 hours=20 TTB.  QTB included 250 hours in 182's, 100 hours in Piper Lances, = with the=20 majority of the earlier hours in 172's and Piper Archers.  TWA is = just shy=20 of 1000.  I am sure there are a lot of Lancair drivers out there = who have=20 better numbers than these.  I am also sure there are a quite a = number who=20 have less than these.
 
Trying to reduce the complexities of aircraft accidents to pure = math is, in=20 my simple mind, not only not possible but not all that useful.  A = general=20 connection between low time, inadequate, poor or no training (TTBA) and = the=20 level of skills necessary to fly whatever plane was crashed is probably = the best=20 you can get.  The general conclusion after throwing out the oddball = freaky=20 accidents will probably be that high quality, type specific, regularly = scheduled=20 training will significantly enhance the Lancair safety numbers.  = For that=20 to happen the pilots need to be convinced that training is in theirs and = their=20 families' best interests.
 
Pilots tend to have a very high regard for their talents and = abilities (the=20 PRB aspect of the issue).  Getting them to realize that, even = though they=20 fly that airplane 100+ hours a year, they still need regular training is = a big=20 job. Probably more difficult than the training itself.  = Stopping=20 someone from doing something that will kill him is impossible when = that=20 person does not recognize the danger in the = decision/action/situation.
 
I think the intellectual exercise of trying to produce a=20 formula based on some statistics is probably useful at = some=20 level.  However, ultimately, the conclusion will be one that we = have=20 discussed many times:  training, training, training.  A = traveling=20 professional group that could be scheduled by the individual pilot by = region=20 would be a big step forward.  Just a thought.  I know I would = fly a=20 couple of hundred miles to participate in a day of training = periodically.
 
I offer no other solutions. 
 
I realize this has been a somewhat rambling discourse and is = probably=20 full of technical mistakes. It is entirely my opinion and = I take=20 responsibility for the content.  Flame suit on. 
 
Jim Scales  
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C94195.9785F140--