X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:10:41 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.123] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.10) with ESMTP id 3282875 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 10:20:40 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.123; envelope-from=super_chipmunk@roadrunner.com Received: from Laptop ([74.75.176.139]) by cdptpa-omta06.mail.rr.com with SMTP id <20081109151957.BTCW16200.cdptpa-omta06.mail.rr.com@Laptop> for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 15:19:57 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <798489E7B8FB4193B915366603F6969A@Laptop> From: "Bill Wade" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Safety in our Community of Lancairs X-Original-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 10:19:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_04DA_01C94254.B7A28FA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_04DA_01C94254.B7A28FA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FWIW when I filled out my LOBO application I included not only my = hours flown and ratings but also types of flight experience (TW, Complex = time; formation, aerobatic experience) and building/ mechanical = experience. Also any accidents/incidents/violations. After looking through so many accident reports I'm frustrated by what = is NOT mentioned on a consistent basis. Sometimes Time in Type is = listed, most often not. Sometimes TTAF is listed but often it's not.=20 My thinking is that we might be able to develop our own database that = could include as many of the above items as each person voluntarily = submitted. I think SEL hours would be as important to know as total = hours- not to criticise but hours in a 747 wouldn't necessarily relate = to flight in a small plane. Listing type-specific training such as HPATS = might reveal how much we as a population value safety and might also = give an indication of the effectiveness of any program over time. When a = mechanical failure is listed it might be good to have some idea of the = engine and prop times. Did you build or buy the plane you're flying? I'm = sure there's other items I haven't thought of. Many people might not want to give out such information so it should = be strictly optional. It also would have to be completely confidential = within LOBO's database unless the submitter specifically agreed to = another use. Unfortunately, it might be most useful post-mortem although = the flip side is that patterns may emerge to show what works in terms of = accident avoidance. -Bill Wade ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Jim Scales=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 9:51 PM Subject: [LML] Re: Safety in our Community of Lancairs 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_04DA_01C94254.B7A28FA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
  FWIW when I filled out my LOBO = application I=20 included not only my hours flown and ratings but also types of = flight=20 experience (TW, Complex time; formation, aerobatic experience) and = building/=20 mechanical experience. Also any = accidents/incidents/violations.
 
  After looking through so many = accident reports=20 I'm frustrated by what is NOT mentioned on a consistent basis. Sometimes = Time in=20 Type is listed, most often not. Sometimes TTAF is listed but often it's = not.=20
 
 My thinking is that we might be able to = develop our=20 own database that could include as many of the above items as each = person=20 voluntarily submitted. I think SEL hours would be as important to know = as total=20 hours- not to criticise but hours in a 747 wouldn't = necessarily relate=20 to flight in a small plane. Listing type-specific training such as = HPATS=20 might reveal how much we as a population value safety and might also = give an=20 indication of the effectiveness of any program over time. When a = mechanical=20 failure is listed it might be good to have some idea of the engine and = prop=20 times. Did you build or buy the plane you're flying? I'm sure there's = other=20 items I haven't thought of.
 
  Many people might not want to give out = such=20 information so it should be strictly optional. It also would have to be=20 completely confidential within LOBO's database unless the submitter = specifically agreed to another use. Unfortunately, it might be most = useful=20 post-mortem although the flip side is that patterns may emerge to show = what=20 works in terms of accident avoidance.
 
  -Bill Wade
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Jim=20 Scales
Sent: Saturday, November 08, = 2008 9:51=20 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Safety in = our=20 Community of Lancairs

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=20 (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,=20 etc. seems to predict a greater chance of success just about = regardless of TBA=20 and would indicate that there might have been factors other than just = seat=20 time involved.
 
Gathering data on those who have not had accidents might bear = this out in=20 a general way.  I know there are some glaring exceptions to this = very=20 simple line of thought but that only proves that no one is immune from = flawed=20 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=20 hours TTB.  QTB included 250 hours in 182's, 100 hours in Piper = Lances,=20 with the majority of the earlier hours in 172's and Piper = Archers.  TWA=20 is just shy of 1000.  I am sure there are a lot of Lancair = drivers out=20 there who have better numbers than these.  I am also sure there = are a=20 quite a number who have less than these.
 
Trying to reduce the complexities of aircraft accidents to pure = math is,=20 in my simple mind, not only not possible but not all that = useful.  A=20 general connection between low time, inadequate, poor or no training = (TTBA)=20 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=20 the oddball freaky accidents will probably be that high quality, type=20 specific, regularly scheduled training will significantly enhance the = Lancair=20 safety numbers.  For that to happen the pilots need to be = convinced that=20 training is in theirs and their families' best interests.
 
Pilots tend to have a very high regard for their talents and = abilities=20 (the PRB aspect of the issue).  Getting them to realize that, = even though=20 they fly that airplane 100+ hours a year, they still need regular = training is=20 a big job. Probably more difficult than the training = itself. =20 Stopping someone from doing something that will kill him is = impossible=20 when that person does not recognize the danger in the=20 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.=20
 
I offer no other solutions. 
 
I realize this has been a somewhat rambling discourse and is = probably full of technical mistakes. It is entirely my opinion = and=20 I take responsibility for the content.  Flame suit on.  =
 
Jim Scales  
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_04DA_01C94254.B7A28FA0--