X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:18:52 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da06.mx.aol.com ([205.188.169.203] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTP id 5048451 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:34:13 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.169.203; envelope-from=VTAILJEFF@aol.com Received: from imo-da04.mx.aol.com (imo-da04.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.202]) by imr-da06.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p6BGXPGH028798 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:33:25 -0400 Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-da04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.119a.21101ec (43955) for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtprly-md03.mx.aol.com (smtprly-md03.mx.aol.com [64.12.143.156]) by cia-dd01.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILCIADD014-d4374e1b25cdaf; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:33:21 -0400 Received: from Webmail-d125 (webmail-d125.sim.aol.com [205.188.252.73]) by smtprly-md03.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYMD036-d4374e1b25cdaf; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:33:17 -0400 References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: another Lancair X-Original-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:33:17 -0400 X-AOL-IP: 75.62.75.10 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_8CE0DFF5FA4CFBF_1120_55A76_Webmail-d125.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 33953-STANDARD Received: from 75.62.75.10 by Webmail-d125.sysops.aol.com (205.188.252.73) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:33:17 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CE0DFF5F942618-1120-2657A@Webmail-d125.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: VTAILJEFF@aol.com ----------MB_8CE0DFF5FA4CFBF_1120_55A76_Webmail-d125.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" it appears that many people are foregoing training these last couple of ye= ars....."I only fly 25 hours a year so I don't really need training" is NO= T a good idea. Jeff got my training yesterday.... -----Original Message----- From: RONALD STEVENS To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Mon, Jul 11, 2011 8:44 am Subject: [LML] Re: another Lancair Hi Mark=20 I also agree with Ronald=E2=80=99s remarks, some folks are not executing= well when it comes to an engine out=E2=80=A6but=E2=80=A6.I also agree tha= t you don=E2=80=99t hear about a lot of Cessna engine outs either. The ot= her thing I would add to Ronald=E2=80=99s note is that our forward speed= is much higher, impacts with stationary objects release far more energy= than say deads ticking something that stalls at 40 or 50 knots. That is why I would advocate to install High-G impact seats and AmSafe Sea= t belt airbags to increase you chances. But in any case it is better to sl= ide on your belly then pancake it from 100ft high. Sure a direct impact wi= th a tree or similar is never desirable, but a field, even a bit rough, is= not a bad choice when the 'shit hits the fan'. But trying to increase the= glide, is never a good choice (unless you have a full feather or counter= weighted prop, then this would at least give you a better chance but stil= l at the same best glide speed). I personally think you should never leave out safety options if you can ha= ve them for the sake of a few dollars (you have to see this in the big sch= eme of things, spending 20k for a prop, 10k for seat belts on a 400k plane= , is less than 8% for safety, not a bad deal, right?.=20 Perhaps I am talking too much about this, but each time I see an accident= it gets to me, so if I stepped on some toes, than I apologize for this.= The good news is that there are people in here who really care and really= are giving us the tools to improve this, and I thank you for that. -- Ronald =20 =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mar= k Steitle Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 9:35 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: another Lancair =20 Jeff,=20 =20 I would like to go to Airventure, but this is a very busy time at work, so= I can't take vacation during July or August. I have only been to OSH onc= e, and that was pre-LOBO. =20 =20 I work in occupational safety, and is probably why I keep asking these que= stions. I'm looking for a common root cause, but I'm not hearing it. I= have a hard time convincing myself that all of these Lancair pilotssittin= g in the left seat with an engine running at full power keep making life-e= nding decisions. If there is fuel in the tanks, the engine should keep ru= nning unless the pilot shuts off the mags, shuts off the fuel, or the engi= ne blows up. I doubt that Cessna pilots have this track record? That ind= icates to me that there may be something more to this than simple pilot er= ror. =20 =20 I am aware of one rotary engine fatal crash where the engine quit on takeo= ff. The pilot tried to make the "impossible turn" and crashed. The cause= was determined to be a faulty fuel system design. I can't help but wonde= r if there may be a gremlin lurking somewhere in our fuel system. =20 =20 ----------MB_8CE0DFF5FA4CFBF_1120_55A76_Webmail-d125.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
it appears that many people are foregoing training these last couple= of years....."I only fly 25 hours a year so I don't really need training"= is NOT a good idea.
 
Jeff
got my training yesterday....




-----Original Message-----
From: RONALD STEVENS <ronald@sdc.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Mon, Jul 11, 2011 8:44 am
Subject: [LML] Re: another Lancair

Hi Mark 
I also agree with Ronald=E2=80= =99s remarks, some folks are not executing well when it comes to an engine= out=E2=80=A6but=E2=80=A6.I also agree that you don=E2=80=99t hear about= a lot of Cessna engine outs either.  The other thing I would add to= Ronald=E2=80=99s note is that our forward speed is much higher, impacts= with stationary objects release far more energy than say deads ticking so= mething that stalls at 40 or 50 knots.
That is why I would advo= cate to install High-G impact seats and AmSafe Seat belt airbags to increa= se you chances. But in any case it is better to slide on your belly then= pancake it from 100ft high. Sure a direct impact with a tree or similar= is never desirable, but a field, even a bit rough, is not a bad choice wh= en the 'shit hits the fan'. But trying to increase the glide, is never a= good choice (unless you have a full feather or counter weighted prop, the= n this would at least give you a better chance but still at the same best= glide speed).
I personally think you should never leave out= safety options if you can have them for the sake of a few dollars (you ha= ve to see this in the big scheme of things, spending 20k for a prop, 10k= for seat belts on a 400k plane, is less than 8% for safety, not a bad dea= l, right?. 
Perhaps I am talking too much about this, but= each time I see an accident it gets to me, so if I stepped on some toes,= than I apologize for this. The good news is that there are people in here= who really care and really are giving us the tools to improve this, and= I thank you for that.

-- Ronald
 
 
From: Lancair Mailing List [= mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On= Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Saturday, July 09,= 2011 9:35 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: another= Lancair
 
Jeff, 
 
I would like to go to Airventure, but this is a very= busy time at work, so I can't take vacation during July or August.  = I have only been to OSH once, and that was pre-LOBO.  <= /div>
 
I work in occupational safety, and is probably why I= keep asking these questions.  I'm looking for a common root cause,= but I'm not hearing it.  I have a hard time convincing myself that= all of these Lancair pilotssitting in the left seat with an engine runnin= g at full power keep making life-ending decisions.  If there is fuel= in the tanks, the engine should keep running unless the pilot shuts off= the mags, shuts off the fuel, or the engine blows up.  I doubt that&= nbsp;Cessna pilots have this track record?  That indicates to me that= there may be something more to this than simple pilot error.  
 
I am aware of one rotary engine fatal crash where the= engine quit on takeoff.  The pilot tried to make the "impossible tur= n" and crashed.  The cause was determined to be a faulty fuel system= design.  I can't help but wonder if there may be a gremlin lurking= somewhere in our fuel system.  
 
----------MB_8CE0DFF5FA4CFBF_1120_55A76_Webmail-d125.sysops.aol.com--