X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:33:44 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.63] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.2) with ESMTP id 1568195 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:41:31 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.63; envelope-from=rtitsworth@mindspring.com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=cb27kXQFesjXpIyOFQgjHS9ObxIgm27OqjLx/Fhsz/R9k+MkliA7Tjc6ia63sBky; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:Thread-Index:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [69.14.154.216] (helo=RDTVAIO) by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1GkLwo-0003O7-CF for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:41:06 -0500 From: "rtitsworth" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Lancair down in Georgia - do the math X-Original-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:40:53 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <002901c708c4$0df8cd50$0500a8c0@RDTVAIO> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002A_01C7089A.2522C550" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AccIeXf1Yrv7qn5IS76D/3SCnxVcagAQ8Tog X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-ELNK-Trace: b17f11247b2ac8f0a79dc4b33984cbaa0a9da525759e2654c8afb530bf667696d6011b80266062d6af78f7fbf31ba7be350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 69.14.154.216 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C7089A.2522C550 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael, How "many more pistons" (your quote from below)??? My data (see prior post) shows approx 8:1 ratio of IV's&IVP's to IVP-T's. (I'm sure there are some errors in my data - but at least it's an honest attempt, and the error can go either way. In fact, my data probably misses some IV's that have been converted to IV-T's and never updated in the FAA registry. This roughly mirrors the accident ratio from Jeff 31:4 You can perceive/claim the IV's have been flying longer, but the magnitude of the number of aircraft certified by year doesn't really support that either (since over 80% of the IV's flying are from the same period as the IVP-T's). It's true there are some old IV's from the 90's (< 50), but the bulk of the flying IV-P fleet (>200) is <5 years old. Overall, the age/hours/miles perception/argument is approximately a wash. Furthermore, one might guess that given the investment and expense (insurance) that the turbines are flying more miles (on average) due to speed and mission profile, and it's just to $ to let them sit. (I'll admit no data/research here - just logical inference). Overall, this data tends to indicate your perceptions/statements are not accurate. My data may be wrong and hence the conclusions wrong - I'm very open to correction from anyone with access to better data, but it is based on the data/facts as available. The Wright's legacy is doing the research and the math - otherwise it's really only a hypothesis, not a conclusion/fact (not something to risk your life with)!!! Rick Titsworth Cell: 313-506-5604 p.s. The "apparent" overall accident rate, approx 2% per year (1:50 ???) should be a wakeup call to those of us (like me) who probably don't get enough meaningful re-current training and/or are taking too many risks. (Someone please check all my math on this). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- From post on 11/15/2006: Not to overstate the obvious there are so many more piston IVs flying that the normalized accident rate of turbines is so much higher, and that piston IVs have been flying for so many more years. Michael Smith As of 8 June 2006 there were 4 IVP turbine accidents reported/ 25 IV accidents and 6 straight IV accidents. I know because I keep a set of books on this and brief the Lancair group every year at OSH on this. Jeff Edwards LIVP N619SJ Lancair Instructor ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C7089A.2522C550 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Michael,

 

How “many more pistons” = (your quote from below)???

 

My data (see prior post) = shows approx 8:1 ratio of IV’s&IVP’s to IVP-T’s.  = (I’m sure there are some errors in my data – but at least it’s an = honest attempt, and the error can go either way.  In fact, my data = probably misses some IV’s that have been converted to IV-T’s and never = updated in the FAA registry.  This roughly mirrors the accident ratio from = Jeff  31:4

 

You can perceive/claim the = IV’s have been flying longer, but the magnitude of the number of aircraft = certified by year doesn’t really support that either (since over 80% of the = IV’s flying are from the same period as the IVP-T’s).  It’s = true there are some old IV’s from the 90’s (< 50), but the bulk of = the flying IV-P fleet (>200) is <5 years old.  Overall, the = age/hours/miles perception/argument is approximately a wash.

 

Furthermore, one might guess that = given the investment and expense (insurance) that the turbines are flying more = miles (on average) due to speed and mission profile, and it’s just to $ to = let them sit.  (I’ll admit no data/research here – just logical inference). 

 

Overall, this data tends to = indicate your perceptions/statements are not accurate.  My data may be wrong and = hence the conclusions wrong – I’m very open to correction from = anyone with access to better data, but it is based on the data/facts as = available.

 

The Wright’s legacy is doing = the research and the math - otherwise it’s really only a hypothesis, not a = conclusion/fact (not something to risk your life with)!!!

 

Rick = Titsworth

Cell: = 313-506-5604

 

p.s. The “apparent” = overall accident rate, approx 2% per year (1:50 ???) should be a wakeup call to those of = us (like me) who probably don’t get enough meaningful re-current training = and/or are taking too many risks.  (Someone please check all my math on = this).

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------= -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------------------------------=

 

From post on = 11/15/2006:

 

Not to overstate the obvious there = are so many more piston IVs flying that the normalized accident rate of turbines is = so much higher, and that piston IVs have been flying for so many more = years.

 

Michael = Smith

 

As of 8 June 2006 there were 4 IVP = turbine accidents reported/ 25 IV accidents and 6 straight IV accidents. I know = because I keep a set of books on this and brief the Lancair group every year at = OSH on this. =

 

=

Jeff = Edwards

LIVP = N619SJ

Lancair = Instructor

 

=
------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C7089A.2522C550--