X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:43:51 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from QMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.24] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.10) with ESMTP id 3284157 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:23:32 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.62.24; envelope-from=mjrav@comcast.net Received: from OMTA13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.52]) by QMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id dQ0Q1a00717dt5G52UNhA2; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:22:41 +0000 Received: from mjr ([66.30.28.190]) by OMTA13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id dUNr1a017466G3E3ZUNuc8; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:22:54 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=ouj2ouTfiqEA:10 a=9crasFSzlmEA:10 a=TGO0UsfloOs0J5md7C8A:9 a=t_z7zak4crz51qtCauwA:7 a=nSJwWK1Kx_6XExLnKJH9THUOoIIA:4 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=uv1ck3d6JtEA:10 a=JGBBzXEp1Hv4_leBQ9UA:9 a=eW_cyEm4Oyyve5jwx7wA:7 a=Hzqlg9SuP1HqYcinuqLesZXEoSwA:4 a=EfJqPEOeqlMA:10 a=AfD3MYMu9mQA:10 X-Original-Message-ID: <001d01c94350$99d975e0$be1c1e42@mjr> From: "Mark Ravinski" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Safety in our Community of Lancairs X-Original-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:23:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001A_01C94326.B0D8B460" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1933 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1933 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C94326.B0D8B460 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jim and all, I think you've hit some useful areas but I think it's really much more = complicated. As an Air Force flight instructor for several years and 1000 hours in a = T-37 I saw quite a few students come through. These guys were carefully screened beforehand. They all had to be = college grads, had to be incredibly healthy and had to do really well on = a 6 hour aptitude test. There were great differences in flying ability. We tried to sort out = the better ones from those to wash out. A great many factors are involved. Basic intelligence, common sense, = attitude, ability to learn and adapt, how they perform under pressure = and fatigue, mechanical intuition, weather they freeze up in a crisis, = etc etc etc. A student had to solo within 20 hours or so and if he was = a little marginal I'd usually let him go if he'd just show me he had = some survival instinct. I've flown with lots of people since in private aviation and I've seen = some much better pilots than many of those military aviation trainees. = Some with only a private ticket. How to you test or train for common sense or survival instinct? How much freedom do we really want to sacrifice by excluding Lancair = wanabees who don't measure up? Someone a lot smarter than me will have to decide. Mark Ravinski 360 1451 hrs (1081 of it mine) ----- 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_001A_01C94326.B0D8B460 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jim and all,
I think you've hit some useful areas but I think = it's=20 really much more complicated.
As an Air Force flight instructor for several = years and=20 1000 hours in a T-37 I saw quite a few students come = through.
These guys were carefully screened = beforehand.  They=20 all had to be college grads, had to be incredibly healthy and had to do = really=20 well on a 6 hour aptitude test.
There were great differences in flying = ability.  We=20 tried to sort out the better ones from those to wash out.
A great many factors are involved.  Basic=20 intelligence, common sense, attitude, ability to learn and adapt, how = they=20 perform under pressure and fatigue,  mechanical=20 intuition,  weather they freeze up in a crisis, etc etc = etc.  A=20 student had to solo within 20 hours or so and if he was a little = marginal I'd=20 usually let him go if he'd just show me he had some survival=20 instinct.
 
I've flown with lots of people since in private = aviation=20 and I've seen some much better pilots than many of those military = aviation=20 trainees.  Some with only a private ticket.
 
How to you test or train for common sense or = survival=20 instinct?
 
How much freedom do we really want to=20 sacrifice by excluding Lancair wanabees who don't measure = up?
 
Someone a lot smarter than me will have to=20 decide.
 
Mark Ravinski
360  1451 hrs   (1081 of it=20 mine)
 
 
 
----- 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_001A_01C94326.B0D8B460--