|
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.
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
|