Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:28:24 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail.indian-creek.net ([209.176.40.9] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2b4) with ESMTP id 122634 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:18:54 -0400 Received: from pavilion (sl27.du.indian-creek.net [209.176.40.43] toucan@78055.com) by mail.indian-creek.net with SMTP (IOA-IPAD 4.02) id 77LCQ00 for ; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:18:16 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <008501c4499f$d266d9c0$2728b0d1@pavilion> From: "Jim Cameron" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: Safety record of the IV's X-Original-Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:19:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0081_01C44975.CFA33F00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0081_01C44975.CFA33F00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well, I certainly provoked a response with my comments yesterday = about the safety record of the IV's. Re-reading it, I think it needs a = little elaboration. I don't have any hard data to back up my statement = about the IV's acdtual safety statistics, but I think most will agree = that the accident rate in the IV's is high -- whether unacceptably so is = a matter for debate. Insurance rates and availability certainly back = that up. I seem to recall a recent posting in which a IV-PT builder was = having to go to Lloyd's, which is a comment in itself. [I've tried to dig out some data from the NTSB data base, but I find = their web site absolutely impossible to understand or negotiate. Since = experimentals are listed under the builder's name as manufacturer, and = model designations can be more or less anything the builder puts down, = the search capability is useless.] Several reactions from the LML members defend the IV's vigorously, = and I can certainly understand that. It's a beautiful airplane, fast, = comfy, and looks marvellous. There is simply nothing like it in the = general aviation spectrum. It's a fact, however, that people are = getting killed in these marvellous machines. Too many people. =20 Is the high accident rate the fault of the aircraft design? I don't = think so, at least not in the sense that there are any safety defects. = The F-18 is probably a safe aircraft, too, when operated within design = limits by appropriately trained pilots. On the other hand, you wouldn't = want to promote it as a general aviation aircraft. Expense aside, it's = just too much airplane for the average pilot to handle. The services = screen pilots for those things by a pretty rigorous process, but I'm = afraid the screening for the IV's is mostly a matter of assessing net = worth. That, to me, is the problem with the IV's. In various ways, it = seems to be more airplane than a lot of pilots are equipped to handle. = High speed, high wing load, high altitude capability -- all these = things let you get into trouble fast. The problem seems magnified with = the IV-PT; though only a handful are flying, there have already been = several fatal crashes. To carry the analogy a little farther, to keep flying in an F-18 = requires a constant high level of practice and recurrent training. To = fly a IV requires, well, not much. If insured, the insurance company = may require some recurrent training, and there's always the biennial = flight review. Otherwise there's nothing to prevent a pilot who's rusty = as an old nail to climb in and file for an IFR flight in serious crud. = Another difference is that when everything goes south in a millisecond, = the F-18 pilot is likely to have the right reflexes in the right amount = of time, whereas the GA pilot ... ? Finally, the F-18 jock can yank the = eject handle when he's really having a bad day, whereas the IV pilot has = to pray he walks away after he hits somethin' hard at, say, 75 to 90 = knots. I can't imagine what the business consequences of discontinuing the = IV's would be. On the other hand, every time I see another fatal = accident report involving a IV, I'm glad I'm not the guy in charge. Jim Cameron Legacy N121J ------=_NextPart_000_0081_01C44975.CFA33F00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Well, I certainly = provoked=20 a response with my comments yesterday about the safety record of the = IV's. =20 Re-reading it, I think it needs a little elaboration.  I don't have = any=20 hard data to back up my statement about the IV's acdtual safety = statistics, but=20 I think most will agree that the accident rate in the IV's is high -- = whether=20 unacceptably so is a matter for debate.  Insurance rates and = availability=20 certainly back that up.  I seem to recall a recent posting in which = a IV-PT=20 builder was having to go to Lloyd's, which is a comment in = itself.
 
    [I've tried to = dig out some=20 data from the NTSB data base, but I find their web site absolutely=20 impossible to understand or negotiate.  Since experimentals are = listed=20 under the builder's name as manufacturer, and model designations can be = more or=20 less anything the builder puts down, the search capability is=20 useless.]
 
    Several reactions = from the=20 LML members defend the IV's vigorously, and I can certainly understand=20 that.  It's a beautiful airplane, fast, comfy, and looks = marvellous. =20 There is simply nothing like it in the general aviation spectrum.  = It's a=20 fact, however, that people are getting killed in these marvellous=20 machines.  Too many people.
   =20
    Is the high = accident rate=20 the fault of the aircraft design?  I don't think so, at least not = in the=20 sense that there are any safety defects.   The F-18 is = probably a safe=20 aircraft, too, when operated within design limits by appropriately = trained=20 pilots.  On the other hand, you wouldn't want to promote it as a = general=20 aviation aircraft.  Expense aside, it's just too much airplane for = the=20 average pilot to handle.  The services screen pilots for those = things by a=20 pretty rigorous process, but I'm afraid the screening for the IV's is = mostly a=20 matter of assessing net worth.  That, to me, is the problem with = the=20 IV's.  In various ways, it seems to be more airplane than a lot of = pilots=20 are equipped to handle.  High speed, high wing load, high altitude=20 capability  -- all these things let you get into trouble = fast.  The=20 problem seems magnified with the IV-PT; though only a handful are = flying, there=20 have already been several fatal crashes.
 
    To carry the analogy a little farther, to keep = flying in=20 an F-18 requires a constant high level of practice and recurrent = training. =20 To fly a IV requires, well, not much.  If insured, the insurance = company=20 may require some recurrent training, and there's always the biennial = flight=20 review.  Otherwise there's nothing to prevent a pilot who's = rusty as=20 an old nail to climb in and file for an IFR flight in serious = crud.  =20 Another difference is that when everything goes south in a millisecond, = the F-18=20 pilot is likely to have the right reflexes in the right amount of time, = whereas=20 the GA pilot ... ?  Finally, the F-18 jock can yank the eject = handle when=20 he's really having a bad day, whereas the IV pilot has to pray he walks = away=20 after he hits somethin' hard at, say, 75 to 90 knots.
 
    I can't imagine what the business consequences = of=20 discontinuing the IV's would be.  On the other hand, every time I = see=20 another fatal accident report involving a IV, I'm glad I'm not the guy = in=20 charge.
 
Jim Cameron
Legacy N121J
 
------=_NextPart_000_0081_01C44975.CFA33F00--