X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:19:06 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-ew0-f210.google.com ([209.85.219.210] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.0) with ESMTP id 4069762 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:52:33 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.219.210; envelope-from=freyas.favored@gmail.com Received: by ewy2 with SMTP id 2so23141129ewy.27 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:51:57 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=D0zoFDvkw/2hqXHi0Y4m/4eHLOvdUQCNa9AG2NEAIyPfx8zL95hF6huAls2xk6f08N ZVODiofWViC/Uu9qrz/r8KVuPIkRhtmzY6WEW246dIp3dm+FDNQanmGKT7CRuVJ1HP3h mUh8kqGEiqUhbADts9up8StNasx7x/v7Wji2o= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.89.206 with SMTP id c56mr1248438wef.123.1262998316980; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:51:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:51:56 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids From: Kailani X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d77e63091bb4047cb0b6c1 --0016e6d77e63091bb4047cb0b6c1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 How many Lancairs are flying? How many of those Lancairs are owned by LOBO members? How many of the "non-members" have been flying for more than a year? (the amount of time LOBO has been in existence) sorry, but you aren't going to convince me that the numbers for one year show that LOBO members are any safer than non-LOBO members. I have no issue with LOBO but I think that's a pretty strong statement to make with very little to base it on. I also think the underhanded slap to members of this board who are not members of LOBO is a pretty craptastic way to get new ones. On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 4:27 PM, wrote: > not statisically likely > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: freyas.favored@gmail.com > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Sent: Fri, Jan 8, 2010 2:42 pm > Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids > > Or could it be that more people who fly aren't members of LOBO so the odds > are with you. > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > ------------------------------ > *From: *vtailjeff@aol.com > *Date: *Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:09:12 -0500 > *To: * > *Subject: *[LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids > > Matt, > > The important part is NO LOBO accidents in 2009. Pretty significant > when not a single LOBO member joins the NTSB club in 2009 -- a better > question would be why are LOBO members "safer" than the general Lancair > community? You probably only have to look at the recent LML discussions to > answer that question for yourself. > > Best Regards, > > Jeff Edwards > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Reeves > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Sent: Wed, Jan 6, 2010 3:15 pm > Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids > > Not to be negative but how many Lancairs flew in 2009 compared to 2008? > Or any airplane for that matter? Just a few years ago, I'd see and hear > planes fly all the time. Now, I'm lucky to hear one a month and never see > them. Sadly, GA is dying. In Rochester, it's $80 to land a small plane - > $40 ramp fee plus $40 landing fee. Less planes fly, less planes crash but > I'm not sure that should be interpreted as an improvement. > > --- On *Wed, 1/6/10, vtailjeff@aol.com * wrote: > > > From: vtailjeff@aol.com > Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 6:16 AM > > > Interesting fact: 9 serious (four fatal with 7 fatalities) Lancair > accidents last year. This is down from 20 accidents (12 fatal with 21 > fatalities) in 2008. Not a single serious accident in 2009 involved a LOBO > member. This parallels COPA's membership accident statistics as well. Keep > it up! > > Jeff Edwards > President, LOBO > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Mitchell > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Sent: Tue, Jan 5, 2010 10:19 pm > Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning > > Some random experiences in Fuel (mis)management. > > Gotcha #1. Left Madison, Wisc, minetes ahead of a rapid moving cold front > in a C-180 ambhibian. Full tanks, checked cover on old style fuel tank - > appeared on (the wing is 12+ feet in the air) so didn't crawel the ladder! > On way to Midway airport, swithched tanks over what is now Tri-State > expressway. Tank # 2 empty because cap loose under the old style cover. > Landed without incident on the Tri-state (prior to concrete being laid.) > > Gotcha #2. In a T-6. Three hours Fuel in two tanks, switching tanks every > 1/2 hour. Made fuel selector swith twice without problem, on third switch > attempt the selector handle broke off. Now unable to fly on fuller tank, so > diverted to alternate airport and landed. No passenger in back seat as > there is a second selector there. Henceforth carried a vicegrip as do about > 1/3 of the knowledgeable T-6 pilots. > > Gotcha #3. In a twin comanche with tip tanks. Heated hangar in N. Wisc. > Drained during preflight a small amount of fuel from the twins peculiar low > point central drain. Left for Florida, with full mains, full aux and full > tips. My proceedure is to taxi out on the mains, switch to aux for run up > then back to mains for take off. Uneventfull cruise at 8500'. Full aux and > tips showing on the gauges. At cruise I swith to left Aux tank, engine > quites, back to main everything ok. Same with rt engine. Analysis frozen > water in both aux tanks. After landing and over night in heated hanger > drain over a gallon of water from sump. A/c always hangared! > > Gotcha#4. I was checking out a CFI in a tailwheel Aeronca Champ, 85hp it > had a fuel system not unlike a Lnc-2. Header tank, 2 wing tanks that gravity > feed to the header. The CFI "student" checks the fuel. " half full header, > half full wing aux tanks". We were only going to do touch and goes in > Sedona, AZ. After 2-3 landings we turned on the aux which drains into the > mains so as to continue circuits and the 4th landing was "dead stick". > > Moral of the story(s), is that; when possible I fly on the top half of the > tanks and enjoy the luxury of capacitance gauges, fuel flow/totalizers and > hopefully no more GOTCHA'S. > > Bob Mitchell > L320 > > > > *Subject:* [LML] Re: Fuel Planning > > I rely heavily on the fuel totalizer in the Velocity. On refueling, it > is invariably accurate to within a gallon on a 30-70 gallon burn, but > there is one scenario where reliance on the totalizer can leave you in the > lurch, and a bad one at that. If a leak develops upstream of the fuel > totalizer sensor, or you leave a fuel cap off, you can be draining or > vacuuming a large fraction of your fuel overboard, but the fuel totalizer > does not recognize this loss, nor will you, if you rely only on the > totalizer. > > Accordingly, we need a means of sensing, or directing reading of, the fuel > left in the tank(s) to know that we haven't had an unexpected loss and that > we can rely on the fuel totalizer. > > Chuck Jensen > > > > > --0016e6d77e63091bb4047cb0b6c1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
How many Lancairs are flying?
How many of those Lancairs are owned by LOBO members?
How many of the "non-members" have been flying for more than= a year? (the amount of time LOBO has been in existence)
=A0
sorry, but you aren't going to convince me that the numbers for on= e year show that LOBO members are any safer than non-LOBO members.=A0 I hav= e no issue with LOBO but I think that's a pretty strong statement to ma= ke with very little to base it on.=A0 I also think the underhanded slap to = members of this board who are not members of LOBO is a pretty craptastic wa= y to get new ones.=A0


On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 4:27 PM, <vtailjeff@aol.com>= wrote:
not statisicall= y likely



-----Original Message-----
From: freyas.favored@gmail.com
To= : lml@lancaironl= ine.net
Sent: Fri, Jan 8, 2010 2:42 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: 2009= Lancair Accidents factoids

Or could it be that more people who fly aren't members of LOBO so = the odds are with you.=20
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:09:12 -0500
Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids

Matt,
=A0
The important part is NO LOBO accidents in 2009. Pretty significant wh= en=A0not a single LOBO member joins the NTSB club in 2009 -- a better quest= ion would be why are LOBO members "safer" than the general Lancai= r community? You probably only have to look at the recent=A0LML discussions= to answer that question for yourself.
=A0
Best Regards,
=A0
Jeff Edwards



= -----Original Message-----
From: Matt Reeves <mattreeves@yahoo.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.ne= t
Sent: Wed, Jan 6, 2010 3:15 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents= factoids

Not to be negative but how many Lancairs flew in 2009 co= mpared to 2008?=A0 Or any airplane for that matter?=A0 Just a few years ago= , I'd see and hear planes fly all the time.=A0 Now, I'm lucky to he= ar one a month and never see them.=A0 Sadly, GA is dying.=A0 In Rochester, = it's $80 to land a small plane - $40 ramp fee plus $40 landing fee. =A0= Less planes fly, less planes crash but I'm not sure that should be int= erpreted as an improvement.

--- On Wed, 1/6/10, vtailjeff@aol.com <vtailjeff@aol.com> wrote:

From: vtailjeff@aol.com <vtailjeff@aol.com>
Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date= : Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 6:16 AM


Interesting fact: 9 serious (four fatal with 7 fatalities) Lancair= accidents last year. This is=A0down from 20 accidents (12 fatal with 21 fa= talities) in 2008. Not a single serious accident in 2009 involved a LOBO me= mber. This parallels COPA's membership accident statistics as well. Kee= p it up!
=A0
Jeff Edwards
President, LOBO


= -----Original Message-----
From: Robert Mitchell <rmitch1@hughes.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.ne= t
Sent: Tue, Jan 5, 2010 10:19 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning

Some random experiences in Fuel (mis)= management.
=A0
Gotcha #1.=A0 Left Madis= on, Wisc, minetes ahead of a rapid moving cold front in a C-180 ambhibian.= =A0 Full tanks, checked cover on old style fuel tank - appeared on (the win= g is 12+ feet in the air) so didn't crawel the ladder!=A0 On way to Mid= way airport, swithched tanks over what is now Tri-State expressway.=A0 Tank= # 2 empty because cap loose under the old style cover.=A0 Landed without i= ncident on the Tri-state (prior to concrete being laid.)
=A0
Gotcha #2.=A0 In a T-6.=A0 Three hour= s Fuel in two tanks, switching tanks every 1/2 hour.=A0 Made fuel selector = swith twice without problem, on third switch attempt the selector handle br= oke off.=A0 Now unable to fly on fuller tank, so diverted to alternate airp= ort and landed.=A0 No passenger in back seat as there is a second selector = there.=A0 Henceforth carried a vicegrip as do about 1/3 of the knowledgeabl= e T-6 pilots.
=A0
Gotcha #3.=A0 In a twin comanche with= tip tanks.=A0 Heated hangar in N. Wisc.=A0 Drained during preflight a smal= l amount of fuel from the twins peculiar low point central drain.=A0 Left f= or Florida, with full mains, full aux and full tips.=A0My proceedure is to = taxi out on the mains, switch to aux for run up then back to mains for take= off.=A0 Uneventfull cruise at 8500'.=A0 Full aux and tips showing on t= he gauges. At cruise I swith to left Aux tank, engine quites, back to main = everything ok.=A0 Same with rt engine.=A0 Analysis frozen water in both aux= tanks.=A0 After landing and over night in heated hanger drain over a gallo= n of water from sump.=A0 A/c always hangared!
=A0
Gotcha#4.=A0I was checking out a CFI = in a tailwheel Aeronca Champ, 85hp it had a fuel system not unlike a Lnc-2.= Header tank, 2 wing tanks that gravity feed to the header.=A0 The CFI &quo= t;student" checks the fuel.=A0 " half full header, half full wing= aux tanks".=A0 We were only going to do touch and goes in Sedona, AZ.= =A0 After 2-3 landings=A0we turned on the aux which drains into the mains s= o as to continue=A0circuits and the 4th landing was "dead stick".= =A0
=A0
Moral of the story(s), is that; when = possible I fly on the top half of the tanks and enjoy the luxury of capacit= ance gauges, fuel flow/totalizers and hopefully no more=A0GOTCHA'S.
=A0
Bob Mitchell
L320
=A0


Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning

I rely heavily on the fuel totalizer in the Velocity.=A0 On refu= eling, it is invariably accurate to within a gallon on a 30-70 gallon burn,= but there=A0is one scenario where reliance on the totalizer can leave you = in the lurch, and a bad one at that.=A0 If a leak develops upstream of the = fuel totalizer sensor, or you leave a fuel cap off, you can be draining or = vacuuming a large fraction of your fuel overboard, but the fuel totalizer d= oes not recognize this loss, nor will you, if you rely only on the totalize= r.=A0
=A0
Accordingly, we need a means of sensing, or directing reading of= , the fuel left in the tank(s) to know that we haven't had an unexpecte= d loss and that we can rely on the fuel totalizer.

Chuck Jensen
=A0


--0016e6d77e63091bb4047cb0b6c1--