X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:17:25 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-ew0-f225.google.com ([209.85.219.225] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.0) with ESMTP id 4071507 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:27:36 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.219.225; envelope-from=freyas.favored@gmail.com Received: by ewy25 with SMTP id 25so602727ewy.5 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:27:00 -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=SfKl67hYhC/QnNyfGIl/FA9PxfTwFz5gEHMvaT98mLQxgAE1B2JI7zVlIwMD2iDYcY 5BHw5zSoZTklfVX9PemAlH98/xcGude5oeRk8Qej6cPn7s7+NJgrOBaWXBLp7B5CzduR 1Y3ZG5DtNYyENFOXh7PT89f8HysX4w7EM5k1c= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.93.68 with SMTP id k46mr2161821wef.161.1263162420160; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:27:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:27:00 -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=0016e6d6444158ed94047cd6eb3b --0016e6d6444158ed94047cd6eb3b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 So your 20% had no accidents. The other 80% had 9 accidents. That's assuming your number of 1000 is even correct since I don't know where that number came from. One years numbers. And you really think that somehow shows that LOBO members are safer pilots? Seriously? On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 3:19 AM, wrote: > over 2000 kits sold; approx 1000 flying; 200 members (20% of the flying > fleet) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Nordin > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Sent: Fri, Jan 8, 2010 6:27 pm > Subject: [LML] 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids > > So a reasonable question is: What percentage of Lancairs are LOBO > affiliated? > Jim > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] > *On Behalf Of *freyas.favored@gmail.com > *Sent:* Friday, January 08, 2010 2:43 PM > > *To:* lml@lancaironline.net > *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 > > > > > --0016e6d6444158ed94047cd6eb3b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
So your 20% had no accidents.=A0The other 80% had 9 accidents. That= 9;s assuming your number of 1000 is even correct since I don't know whe= re that number came from.
=A0 One years numbers.=A0 And you really think= that somehow shows that LOBO members are safer pilots?=A0 Seriously?=A0
=A0
=A0

=A0
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 3:19 AM, <vtailjeff@aol.com> wrote:
over 2000 kits = sold; approx 1000 flying; 200 members (20% of the flying fleet)



-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Nordin <panelmaker@earthlin= k.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Fri, Jan 8, 2010 6:27 pm
Subject: [LML] 2009 Lancair Acciden= ts factoids

So a reasonable= question is: What percentage of Lancairs are LOBO affiliated?
Jim
=A0
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of freyas.favored@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2= 010 2:43 PM=20

To: <= a href=3D"mailto:lml@lancaironline.net" target=3D"_blank">lml@lancaironline= .net
Subject: [LML] = Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids
=A0
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
Subject: [L= ML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids
=A0
Matt,
=A0<= /font>
The importa= nt part is NO LOBO accidents in 2009. Pretty significant when=A0not a singl= e 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=A0LML discussions to answer that = question for yourself.
=A0<= /font>
Best Regard= s,
=A0<= /font>
Jeff Edwards
=A0
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Reeves = <mattreeves@ya= hoo.com>
To: lml@lancairo= nline.net
Sent: Wed, Jan 6, 2010 3:15 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 = Lancair Accidents factoids
=A0=

--0016e6d6444158ed94047cd6eb3b--
Not to be negative but how many Lancairs flew in 20= 09 compared to 2008?=A0 Or any airplane for that matter?=A0 Just a few year= s ago, I'd see and hear planes fly all the time.=A0 Now, I'm lucky = to hear one a month and never see them.=A0 Sadly, GA is dying.=A0 In Roches= ter, 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 b= e interpreted 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

Interes= ting fact: 9 serious (four fatal with 7 fatalities) Lancair accidents last = year. This is=A0down from 20 accidents (12 fatal with 21 fatalities) in 200= 8. Not a single serious accident in 2009 involved a LOBO member. This paral= lels COPA's membership accident statistics as well. Keep it up!<= /font>
=A0<= /font>
Jeff Edward= s
President, = LOBO
=A0
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Mitch= ell <rmitch1@hug= hes.net>
To: lml@lancairo= nline.net
Sent: Tue, Jan 5, 2010 10:19 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel= Planning
Som= e random experiences in Fuel (mis)management.
=A0=
Got= cha #1.=A0 Left Madison, Wisc, minetes ahead of a rapid moving cold front i= n a C-180 ambhibian.=A0 Full tanks, checked cover on old style fuel tank - = appeared on (the wing is 12+ feet in the air) so didn't crawel the ladd= er!=A0 On way to Midway 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 incident on the Tri-state (prior to concrete being laid.= )
=A0=
Got= cha #2.=A0 In a T-6.=A0 Three hours Fuel in two tanks, switching tanks ever= y 1/2 hour.=A0 Made fuel selector swith twice without problem, on third swi= tch attempt the selector handle broke off.=A0 Now unable to fly on fuller t= ank, so diverted to alternate airport and landed.=A0 No passenger in back s= eat as there is a second selector there.=A0 Henceforth carried a vicegrip a= s do about 1/3 of the knowledgeable T-6 pilots.
=A0=
Got= cha #3.=A0 In a twin comanche with tip tanks.=A0 Heated hangar in N. Wisc.= =A0 Drained during preflight a small amount of fuel from the twins peculiar= low point central drain.=A0 Left for Florida, with full mains, full aux an= d 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 the 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 nigh= t in heated hanger drain over a gallon of water from sump.=A0 A/c always ha= ngared!
=A0=
Got= cha#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 f= eed to the header.=A0 The CFI "student" checks the fuel.=A0 "= ; half full header, half full wing aux tanks".=A0 We were only going t= o do touch and goes in Sedona, AZ.=A0 After 2-3 landings=A0we turned on the= aux which drains into the mains so as to continue=A0circuits and the 4th l= anding was "dead stick".=A0
=A0=
Mor= al of the story(s), is that; when possible I fly on the top half of the tan= ks and enjoy the luxury of capacitance gauges, fuel flow/totalizers and hop= efully no more=A0GOTCHA'S.
=A0=
Bob= Mitchell
L32= 0
=A0=
=A0=

Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning
I r= ely heavily on the fuel totalizer in the Velocity.=A0 On refueling, it is i= nvariably accurate to within a gallon on a 30-70 gallon burn, but there=A0i= s 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 la= rge fraction of your fuel overboard, but the fuel totalizer does not recogn= ize this loss, nor will you, if you rely only on the totalizer.=A0 <= /font>
=A0=
Acc= ordingly, we need a means of sensing, or directing reading of, the fuel lef= t in the tank(s) to know that we haven't had an unexpected loss and tha= t we can rely on the fuel totalizer.
Chuck Jensen<= /font>
=A0=