Mailing List lml@lancaironline.net Message #54166
From: Dave Schroder <schroder@timesync.com>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:17:25 -0500
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
Some wise old pilot observed.................
There are old pilots
There are bold pilots
There are NO Old Bold Pilots.
 
Fly Safe.
dave
IV-P (sold) 188 hours
1800 hours accident/incident free
 
 ----- Original Message -----
From: Randy
Sent: 01/10/2010 3:19 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids

Hey Jeff,
Do you ever fly or do spend all your time making ridiculous statements?
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.
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.
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 -----
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:09 AM
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 <mattreeves@yahoo.com>
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 <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 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 <rmitch1@hughes.net>
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
 



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4758 (20100110) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster