Message-ID: <3B3CC1DD.F1254C6B@visi.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 12:58:53 -0500
From: Michael <smithm@visi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Subject: Re: An update on the investigation of N424E Crash.
References: <3B3C762E.9C5C13F2@regandesigns.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
While I recognize the issues regarding the missing 7 gallons in the 24 E crash,
I still would have serious concerns departing with a calculated most optimal
reserve of seven gallons, particularly into a airport where the enroute options
are few and the ground below fairly inhospitable.

You know, it dawned on me that surgery and general aviation are some of the few
vocations where there is an intrinsic lack of human element redundancy.  Often
there is only one surgeon or one pilot in command, and no other resources
available ( think of a dark stormy night flying or some trauma hitting the ER in
a small town in Idaho...yikes, Brent) when the flak hits the fan.  If that
resource has not thought it through or played to excessively optimistic
estimates, the results could be fatal.  And they are.  Beware the pilot who is
good at getting out of trouble.


Michael D Smith

>
> You could see 5 gallons on the gage, add 35 gallons to the tank (for a total
> of 40) but, after a trip to the flight levels, only have 33+- gallons
> available.

Still not enough reserve in this case regardless.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://www.olsusa.com/mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair

Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>