Randy,

 

I don't recognize the pilots or planes of most of the Lancair accidents I have reviewed.  That is, I don't remember seeing their names on the LML.  They may have been lurkers - who knows?

 

To me, this has certain implications.  Active LMLers can be more aware of issues pertaining to the Lancair model they fly - both with respect to flight and maintenance.  This may mean they are more involved with their aircraft.  This does not mean there are aren't safe fliers in the rest of the population.  The same goes for LOBO members as they have gone one more step and even spent a little money in an attempt to stay abreast of safety related information.  The same goes for those that use Lancair knowledgeable CFIs and/or utilize training from organizations like HPAT or any other cut one may make through the population.

 

Time in type has a meaningful negative correlation with proneness to an accident - especially in Lancairs.  Of course, to get to high time in type one has to pass thru the regions of low time in type without, uh, fatal accidents marring that passage. 

 

It seems to me that the riskiest Lancair pilot operation is by those that did not build their airplane (less familiar with its systems) and especially those that bought a pre-flown Lancair and did not get proper training or sufficient information about their aerodynamically slick high performance aircraft.  There have been a goodly number of fatal accidents with those factors as a contributing cause.

 

So what? Well, there are different sub-populations of Lancair fliers and those sub-populations have different accident characteristics.  It would be nice to move the entire community into one that suffers a low accident rate.  Insurance companies do this all the time by adding conditions to the policy holder and charging higher rates to those that don't meet their conditions or denying coverage entirely.  All this is to make sure they take in more premiums than they pay out in claims - its the American way.  Although LML activities are not yet required as a condition, we know that time in type, high performance time, professional inspections and training, and recurrent training do have an impact on insurability.  Perhaps LOBO membership will be a future insurability condition.

 

Anyway, I hope this makes you less tense about Jeff's terse comments.

 

Scott Krueger

 

PS It seems that you are always yelling when you use larger bold type.  Please try to hold it down.

 

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 -----

From: vtailjeff@aol.com

To: lml@lancaironline.net

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