Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 14:47:30 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1112034@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.36.178.141; envelope-from=JJHALLE@stoel.com
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: "unsafe" airplanes
Thread-Topic: lml Digest #1600
Thread-Index: AcZ2dHAX6IIG+4DWRNe5S7A+2qXr8AAIopIg
From: "Halle, John" <JJHALLE@stoel.com>

After reading Rienk Ayers' post about IVP's being unsafe I have been =
thinking if there is any such thing as an "unsafe airplane".  After 15 =
minutes, I can come up with two categories: airplanes that are grossly =
aerodynamically unstable or otherwise have design characteristics that =
make them almost unflyable and airplanes that are so badly maintained =
that they have essential gear that does not work.  Regarding the former, =
the F104 comes to mind, particularly after the German Air Force loaded =
the nose up with avionics, and there have been other examples, mostly =
earlier in the history of aviation and mostly a result of attempts by =
the military to push performance to the limit.  No Lancair comes even =
close to this category.  It is true that they are a bit less forgiving =
than are airplanes that are designed to be flown by people who don't =
know how to fly (e.g. 172s) but to suggest that Lancairs are "unsafe" =
because they don't scream at you that you are 40 kts. too slow is simply =
hyperbole.

Maintenance is, of course, up to the owner and, in that sense, any =
airplane can be unsafe.

So why is this important?  It is important because the focus on "unsafe =
airplanes", whether because they are designed for performance or don't =
have AOAs installed or for any other "technology driven" reason, is an =
excuse not to deal with the real problem, which is, of course, unsafe =
pilots.  For reasons that I think the homebuilt community should =
consisder carefully, our record in this area is abysmal and we should be =
trying to find the reasons for that, rather than focusing on defects in =
our tools.  A review of homebuilt accidents (particularly at the high =
end with Lancairs etc.) shows that the type of airplane was not a factor =
in most cases and that the same accident could have happened in almost =
any airplane.  (Flying into CBs is 100% pilot error and it is simply =
escapist to focus on the particular spin characteristics that were the =
result of that error.)  Stalling in the pattern is also 100% pilot error =
whether the particular type of airplane gives good or poor stall =
warning.  (No, I don't know what caused the recent crash and this is not =
a commentary on it.)

I don't see how it is possible to escape the fact that, as a group, we =
make particuarly poor flying decisions, many of which result in =
accidents and deaths.  I don't know why that is but let me offer a =
plausible speculation.  As a group, we are naturally optimists -- else =
we would never take on the task of building an airplane.  Successfully =
completing the task reinforces our belief in our omnipotence.  The next =
thing that happens is that we take the plane up and perform some of the =
functions of a test pilot.  We bring the airplane back to the hangar and =
tinker with it, make a few mods, take it up again.  After a few years of =
this, it goes to our heads.  We begin to think of ourselves as test =
pilots when we absolutely aren't.  (If you doubt this, spend even 15 =
minutes talking to a real test pilot.)  We begin to take ourselves =
seriously as airplane mechanics when we aren't.  (Again, spend some time =
at a first class shop watching how a real A&P functions.)  If we haven't =
been killed yet, over time, we come to see ourselves as masters of the =
universe.

Bob Hoover is a master of the universe.  Most of the rest of us aren't.  =
It doesn't take a master of the universe to fly a Lancair, just a pilot =
who is willing to stay within reasonable limits based on his/her ability =
and the airplane's characteristics.  It's the ability part we have a =
problem with.