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 imr-da03.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.145] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.0) with ESMTP id 4071293 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:24:36 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.145; envelope-from=VTAILJEFF@aol.com Received: from imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (imo-ma04.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.139]) by imr-da03.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o0AHNsYF008606 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:23:54 -0500 Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id q.bd4.5bd568cf (37553) for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:23:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtprly-de02.mx.aol.com (smtprly-de02.mx.aol.com [205.188.249.169]) by cia-mb03.mx.aol.com (v127.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMB032-b23b4b4a0d1ce4; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:23:45 -0500 Received: from webmail-stg-d11 (webmail-stg-d11.sim.aol.com [205.188.185.228]) by smtprly-de02.mx.aol.com (v127.7) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYDE026-b23b4b4a0d1ce4; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:23:40 -0500 References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids X-Original-Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:23:40 -0500 X-AOL-IP: 24.107.70.141 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CC6030C945B0A4_6D0_16C94_webmail-stg-d11.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 30361-STANDARD Received: from 24.107.70.141 by webmail-stg-d11.sysops.aol.com (205.188.185.228) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:23:40 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CC6030C93506E1-6D0-B45A@webmail-stg-d11.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: VTAILJEFF@aol.com ----------MB_8CC6030C945B0A4_6D0_16C94_webmail-stg-d11.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 my original quote was: "Interesting fact: 9 serious (four fatal with 7 fat= alities) 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 statist= ics as well. Keep it up!" If you are not convinced see www.ntsb.gov for yourself. Facts are facts.= Here is a link to last year's accidents: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Respo= nse2.asp=20 Not a single one involved a LOBO member. Fact.=20 Fact: LOBO members last year had no serious accidents viz Lancair pilots= as a whole--this is no criticism of Lancair pilots---just a statement of= fact. ["I don't believe it....how many hours does?....yada yada yada"--= if you don't believe me then then do your own analysis and prove me wrong= ! Otherwise shut the f___ up.] Fact: COPA pilots have a much lower accident rate than non COPA members.= For more information see COPA's Nov/ Dec 09 issue page 23. With over 6000= Cirri sold COPA members account for 40% of the owners yet only 20% of the= accidents. hmmmm.... Opinion: Type club members generally have lower accident rates than non me= mbers.=20 Question: why? so far everyone wants to attack the messenger or the facts= but has not yet answered the important question...."why?" My hypothesis is that type club members also avail themselves of additiona= l training--beyond the minimums, seek out and pay attention to the advice= of experts, try to abide by prudent and safe operating procedures and mor= e. A parallel arguemnt could be made for why peopel who go to the gym regu= larly are more physically fit.. because they work at it! I noticed this same phenomena when I taught with the American Bonanza Soci= ety.=20 So for those thin skinned Lancair pilots who think I insulted them with th= e facts then I will try to change the facts next year! For those who don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion see= Webster's. Best Regrads, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Kailani To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Sun, Jan 10, 2010 5:19 am Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids 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) =20 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 is= sue with LOBO but I think that's a pretty strong statement to make with ve= ry 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. =20 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.=20 Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From: vtailjeff@aol.com=20 Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:09:12 -0500 To: Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids Matt,=20 =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 th= at question for yourself.=20 =20 Best Regards, =20 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 se= e 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 acciden= ts 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. Th= is parallels COPA's membership accident statistics as well. Keep it up! =20 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. =20 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 ladd= er! 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.) =20 Gotcha #2. In a T-6. Three hours Fuel in two tanks, switching tanks ever= y 1/2 hour. Made fuel selector swith twice without problem, on third swit= ch attempt the selector handle broke off. Now unable to fly on fuller tan= k, 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. =20 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'. Fu= ll 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. Analysi= s 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! =20 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 grav= ity 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 go= es in Sedona, AZ. After 2-3 landings we turned on the aux which drains in= to the mains so as to continue circuits and the 4th landing was "dead stic= k".=20 =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 an= d hopefully no more GOTCHA'S.=20 =20 Bob Mitchell L320 =20 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 lurc= h, and a bad one at that. If a leak develops upstream of the fuel totaliz= er 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 =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 th= at we can rely on the fuel totalizer. Chuck Jensen=20 =20 ----------MB_8CC6030C945B0A4_6D0_16C94_webmail-stg-d11.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
 
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
my original quote was: "Interesting fact: 9 serious (four fatal with= 7 fatalities) Lancair accidents last year. This is down from 20 acci= dents (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!"
 
If you are not convinced see www.ntsb= .gov for yourself. Facts are facts. Here is a link to last year's acci= dents:   http= ://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp

Not a single one involved a LOBO member. Fact.
 
Fact: LOBO members last year had no serious accidents viz Lancair pil= ots as a whole--this is no criticism of Lancair pilots---just a statement= of fact. ["I don't believe it....how many hours does?....yada yada yada"-= - if you don't believe me then then do your own analysis and prove me wron= g! Otherwise shut the f___ up.]
 
Fact: COPA pilots have a much lower accident rate than non COPA membe= rs. For more information see COPA's Nov/ Dec 09 issue page 23. With over= 6000 Cirri sold COPA members account for 40% of the owners yet only 20%= of the accidents. hmmmm....
Opinion: Type club members generally have lower accident rates than= non members.
 
Question: why? so far everyone wants to attack the messenger or the= facts but has not yet answered the important question...."why?"
 
My hypothesis is that type club members also avail themselves of addi= tional training--beyond the minimums, seek out and pay attention to the ad= vice of experts, try to abide by prudent and safe operating procedures and= more. A parallel arguemnt could be made for why peopel who go to the gym= regularly are more physically fit.. because they work at it!
 
I noticed this same phenomena when I taught with the American Bonanza= Society. 
 
So for those thin skinned Lancair pilots who think I insulted them wi= th the facts then I will try to change the facts next year!
 
For those who don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion= see Webster's.
 
Best Regrads,
 
Jeff


-----Original Message-----
From: Kailani <freyas.favored@gmail.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Sun, Jan 10, 2010 5:19 am
Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids

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 cra= ptastic way to get new ones. 


On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 4:27 PM, &= lt;vtailjeff@aol.com>= wrote:
not statisically lik= ely



-----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.=20
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:09:12 -0500
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 bette= r question would be why are LOBO members "safer" than the general Lancair= community? You probably only have to look at the recent LML discussi= ons to answer that question for yourself.
 
Best Regards,
 
Jeff Edwards



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Reeves <mattreeves@y= ahoo.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 com= pared to 2008?  Or any airplane for that matter?  Just a few yea= rs 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 shou= ld be interpreted as an improvement.

--- On Wed, 1/6/10, vtailjeff@aol.= com <vtailjeff@aol.com&= gt; 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 acciden= ts last year. This is down from 20 accidents (12 fatal with 21 fatali= ties) in 2008. Not a single serious accident in 2009 involved a LOBO membe= r. This parallels COPA's membership accident statistics as well. Keep it= up!
 
Jeff Edwards
President, LOBO


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

Some random experiences in Fuel (mis)man= agement.
 
Gotcha #1.  Left Madis= on, 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.&nb= sp; Tank # 2 empty because cap loose under the old style cover.  Land= ed 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 selecto= r 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.&n= bsp; Left for Florida, with full mains, full aux and full tips. My pr= oceedure 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, engin= e quites, back to main everything ok.  Same with rt engine.  Ana= lysis 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 CF= I "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".&nbs= p;
 
Moral of the story(s), is that; when pos= sible I fly on the top half of the tanks and enjoy the luxury of capacitan= ce 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 rel= y 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 unexpecte= d loss and that we can rely on the fuel totalizer.

Chuck Jensen
 


 ----------MB_8CC6030C945B0A4_6D0_16C94_webmail-stg-d11.sysops.aol.com--