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 blu0-omc3-s2.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.77] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.0) with ESMTP id 4069764 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:44:21 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.116.77; envelope-from=randystuart@hotmail.com Received: from BLU0-SMTP69 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s2.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:43:47 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [99.163.234.153] X-Originating-Email: [randystuart@hotmail.com] X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: randystuart@hotmail.com Received: from laptop ([99.163.234.153]) by BLU0-SMTP69.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:43:45 -0800 From: "Randy" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids X-Original-Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:43:49 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0042_01CA9081.C0A15560" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jan 2010 00:43:46.0032 (UTC) FILETIME=[CCF8AF00:01CA90C4] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01CA9081.C0A15560 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey Jeff,=20 Do you ever fly or do spend all your time making ridiculous statements?=20 So, now LOBO has "Safer Pilots" then anywhere else?? Wouldn't it be more = the odds of the few percent in LOBO against the vast majority NOT in = LOBO which gives you those stats? OK, going with that observation, = Camarillo must have the safest pilots, no accidents there and Van Nuys = must also have the safest pilots as well, and so on and so on. The = safest pilot anywhere must be in my hanger, I have no accidents.=20 And, "You probably only have to look at the recent LML discussions to = answer that question for yourself." PLEASE.... We have established that LNC-4's are the most unsafe of all = the Lancair's. And those accidents were from pilot and builder error! = LNC-4's are the ones that can't get insurance, or pay very high = premiums. You fly an LNC-4. LNC-4's are a small percentage of the total = Lancair's.=20 I can't believe you subscribe to this tripe, and see no problem bad = mouthing a good group of people that you know absolutely nothing about.. = Just who do you think you are? Randy Stuart LNC-2 Fast - Safe - Insured - Accident Free ----- Original Message -----=20 From: vtailjeff@aol.com=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:09 AM Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids Matt,=20 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.=20 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".=20 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.=20 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. =20 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=20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01CA9081.C0A15560 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hey Jeff,=20
Do you ever fly or = do spend=20 all your time making ridiculous statements?
So, now LOBO has = "Safer=20 Pilots" then anywhere else?? Wouldn't it be more the odds of the few = percent in=20 LOBO against the vast majority NOT in LOBO which gives you those stats? = OK,=20 going with that observation, Camarillo must have the safest pilots, no = accidents=20 there and Van Nuys must also have the safest pilots as well, and so on = and so=20 on. The safest pilot anywhere must be in my hanger, I have no accidents. =
And, = "You=20 probably only have to look at the recent LML discussions to answer = that=20 question for yourself."
PLEASE.... We have = established=20 that LNC-4's are the most unsafe of all the Lancair's. And those=20 accidents were from pilot and builder error! LNC-4's are the ones = that=20 can't get insurance, or pay very high premiums. You fly an LNC-4. = LNC-4's are a=20 small percentage of the total Lancair's.
I can't believe = you subscribe=20 to this tripe, and see no problem bad mouthing a good group of people = that you=20 know absolutely nothing about.. Just who do you think you=20 are?
 
 
Randy=20 Stuart
LNC-2
Fast - Safe - = Insured -=20 Accident Free
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 vtailjeff@aol.com
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 = 11:09=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair = Accidents=20 factoids

Matt,
 
The important part is NO LOBO accidents in 2009. Pretty = significant=20 when not a single LOBO member joins the NTSB club in 2009 -- a = better=20 question would be why are LOBO members "safer" than the general = Lancair=20 community? You probably only have to look at the recent LML = discussions=20 to answer that question for yourself.
 
Best Regards,
 
Jeff Edwards



-----Original=20 Message-----
From: Matt Reeves <mattreeves@yahoo.com>
To:=20 lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Wed, Jan 6, 2010 3:15 pm
Subject: = [LML] Re:=20 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids

Not to be negative but how many Lancairs flew in = 2009=20 compared to 2008?  Or any airplane for that matter?  = Just a=20 few years ago, I'd see and hear planes fly all the time.  = Now, I'm=20 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=20 plus $40 landing fee.   Less planes fly, less planes crash = but I'm=20 not sure that should be interpreted as an = improvement.

--- On=20 Wed, 1/6/10, vtailjeff@aol.com=20 <vtailjeff@aol.com>=20 wrote:

From:=20 vtailjeff@aol.com = <vtailjeff@aol.com>
Subject:=20 [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)=20 Lancair accidents last year. This is down from 20 = accidents (12=20 fatal with 21 fatalities) in 2008. Not a single serious = accident in=20 2009 involved a LOBO member. This parallels COPA's membership = accident=20 statistics as well. Keep it up!
 
Jeff Edwards
President, LOBO


-----Original=20 Message-----
From: Robert Mitchell <rmitch1@hughes.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: = Tue, Jan 5, 2010 10:19 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel=20 Planning

Some random=20 experiences in Fuel (mis)management.
 
Gotcha #1.  Left Madison, Wisc, = minetes=20 ahead of a rapid moving cold front in a C-180 ambhibian.  = Full=20 tanks, checked cover on old style fuel tank - appeared on (the = wing is=20 12+ feet in the air) so didn't crawel the ladder!  On way = to=20 Midway airport, swithched tanks over what is now Tri-State=20 expressway.  Tank # 2 empty because cap loose under the = old style=20 cover.  Landed without incident on the Tri-state (prior = to=20 concrete being laid.)
 
Gotcha=20 #2.  In a T-6.  Three hours Fuel in two tanks, = switching=20 tanks every 1/2 hour.  Made fuel selector swith twice = without=20 problem, on third switch attempt the selector handle broke = off. =20 Now unable to fly on fuller tank, so diverted to alternate = airport and=20 landed.  No passenger in back seat as there is a second = selector=20 there.  Henceforth carried a vicegrip as do about 1/3 of = the=20 knowledgeable T-6 pilots.
 
Gotcha=20 #3.  In a twin comanche with tip tanks.  Heated = hangar in N.=20 Wisc.  Drained during preflight a small amount of fuel = from the=20 twins peculiar low point central drain.  Left for = Florida, with=20 full mains, full aux and full tips. My proceedure is to = taxi out=20 on the mains, switch to aux for run up then back to mains for = take=20 off.  Uneventfull cruise at 8500'.  Full aux and = tips=20 showing on the gauges. At cruise I swith to left Aux tank, = engine=20 quites, back to main everything ok.  Same with rt = engine. =20 Analysis frozen water in both aux tanks.  After landing = and over=20 night in heated hanger drain over a gallon of water from = sump. =20 A/c always hangared!
 
Gotcha#4. I was checking out a = CFI in a=20 tailwheel Aeronca Champ, 85hp it had a fuel system not unlike = a Lnc-2.=20 Header tank, 2 wing tanks that gravity feed to the = header.  The=20 CFI "student" checks the fuel.  " half full header, half = full=20 wing aux tanks".  We were only going to do touch and goes = in=20 Sedona, AZ.  After 2-3 landings we turned on the aux = which=20 drains into the mains so as to continue circuits and the = 4th=20 landing was "dead stick". 
 
Moral of the=20 story(s), is that; when possible I fly on the top half of the = tanks=20 and enjoy the luxury of capacitance gauges, fuel = flow/totalizers and=20 hopefully no more GOTCHA'S.
 
Bob=20 Mitchell
L320
 


Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel=20 Planning

I rely heavily on the = fuel=20 totalizer in the Velocity.  On refueling, it is = invariably=20 accurate to within a gallon on a 30-70 gallon burn, but = there is=20 one scenario where reliance on the totalizer can leave you in = the=20 lurch, and a bad one at that.  If a leak develops = upstream of the=20 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=20 fuel totalizer does not recognize this loss, nor will you, if = you rely=20 only on the totalizer. 
 
Accordingly, we need a = means of=20 sensing, or directing reading of, the fuel left in the tank(s) = to know=20 that we haven't had an unexpected loss and that we can rely on = the=20 fuel totalizer.

Chuck=20 Jensen
 

 ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01CA9081.C0A15560--