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-ma02.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.40] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.0) with ESMTP id 4071209 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:38:37 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.40; envelope-from=VTAILJEFF@aol.com Received: from imo-da04.mx.aol.com (imo-da04.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.202]) by imr-ma02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o0ADbtMo010175 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:37:55 -0500 Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-da04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id q.ca5.5635edad (34934) for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:37:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtprly-mb01.mx.aol.com (smtprly-mb01.mx.aol.com [64.12.207.148]) by cia-da04.mx.aol.com (v127.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIADA047-5c5b4b49d82a29c; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:37:50 -0500 Received: from webmail-stg-d11 (webmail-stg-d11.sim.aol.com [205.188.185.228]) by smtprly-mb01.mx.aol.com (v127.7) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYMB011-5c5b4b49d82a29c; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:37:46 -0500 References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids X-Original-Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:37:47 -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_8CC60113AE94331_6D0_153C4_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 08:37:47 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CC60113ADAFAD3-6D0-A7AB@webmail-stg-d11.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: VTAILJEFF@aol.com ----------MB_8CC60113AE94331_6D0_153C4_webmail-stg-d11.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Randy, Thank you for asking. Here is who I am: I am a retired U.S. Naval Officer where I was an A-6 Intruder bombardier/= navigator. I was a squadron safety officer schooled at the U. S. Naval Po= st Graduate school in aviation safety. I served as an aircraft accident in= vestigator for the U.S. Naval Safety Center investigating Navy and Marine= Corps aircraft accidents. After I retired from the Navy, I worked for McD= onnell Douglas and later Boeing as an aircracft accident investigator.=20 I have owned and operated an aviation safety consulting firm for twelve ye= ars and consult with major aircraft manufacturers on issues affecting them= . I have personally investigated over 300 aircraft accidents.=20 I hold an ATP and several CFI certifcates. I have been an FAA Designated= Pilot Examiner for the St. Louis FSDO for the last ten years. I was selec= ted as the national flight instructor of the year in 2003 by industry and= the FAA. I routinely volunteer my time and energy and my company's resou= rces to teach and train and encourage other pilots to fly safely and respo= nsibly. I spoke at over a half dozen events around the country last year= on aviation safety topics. I am speaking at two events in the next few we= eks. Care to join? For the last several years I have hosted the Lancair= Forum at Oshkosh. At those forums I review the preceding year's Lancair= accidents. I have studied and categorized all the Lancair accident record= s and have shared that information online and at Oshkosh--the data is what= the data is. With four other individuals I founded LOBO in 2008. Its purpose is to prom= ote the the safe use and enjoyment of our Lancairs. We have spent literall= y hundreds of man hours building this organization to benefit the members= and all Lancair owners.=20 Oh,by the way-- I built two Lancairs. Now Randy, its your turn--please tell us what makes you an "expert" in thi= s aviation safety arena? Best Regards, William J. "Jeff" Edwards ATP (multi); Comm SEL/ SES/ Glider; CFI, CFII, MGI, AGI Repairman x 2 N818SJ -----Original Message----- From: Randy To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Sun, Jan 10, 2010 5:19 am Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids 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 ha= ve the safest pilots as well, and so on and so on. The safest pilot anywhe= re must be in my hanger, I have no accidents.=20 And, "You probably only have to look at the recent LML discussions to answ= er 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 mouthi= ng a good group of people that you know absolutely nothing about.. Just wh= o do you think you are? =20 =20 Randy Stuart LNC-2 Fast - Safe - Insured - Accident Free =20 =20 =20 ----- 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 =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_8CC60113AE94331_6D0_153C4_webmail-stg-d11.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Randy,
 
Thank you for asking. Here is who I am:
 
I am a retired U.S. Naval Officer where I was an A-6 Intruder bombard= ier/ navigator. I was a squadron safety officer schooled at the U. S. Nava= l Post Graduate school in aviation safety. I served as an aircraft acciden= t investigator for the U.S. Naval Safety Center investigating Navy and Mar= ine Corps aircraft accidents. After I retired from the Navy, I worked for= McDonnell Douglas and later Boeing as an aircracft accident investigator.=
 
I have owned and operated an aviation safety consulting firm for twel= ve years and consult with major aircraft manufacturers on issues affecting= them. I have personally investigated over 300 aircraft accidents.
 
I hold an ATP and several CFI certifcates. I have been an FAA Designa= ted Pilot Examiner for the St. Louis FSDO for the last ten years. I was se= lected as the national flight instructor of the year in 2003 by industry= and the FAA.  I routinely volunteer my time and energy and my compan= y's resources to teach and train and encourage other pilots to fly safely= and responsibly. I spoke at over a half dozen events around the country= last year on aviation safety topics. I am speaking at two events in the= next few weeks.  Care to join? For the last several years I hav= e hosted the Lancair Forum at Oshkosh. At those forums I review the= preceding year's Lancair accidents. I have studied and categorized all th= e Lancair accident records and have shared that information online and at= Oshkosh--the data is what the data is.
 
With four other individuals I founded LOBO in 2008. Its purpose is to= promote the the safe use and enjoyment of our Lancairs. We have spen= t literally hundreds of man hours building this organization to benefit th= e members and all Lancair owners.
 
Oh,by the way-- I built two Lancairs.
 
Now Randy, its your turn--please tell us what makes you an "expert"= in this aviation safety arena?
 
Best Regards,
 
William J. "Jeff" Edwards
ATP (multi); Comm SEL/ SES/ Glider; CFI, CFII, MGI, AGI
Repairman x 2
N818SJ


-----Original Message-----
From: Randy <randystuart@hotmail.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Sun, Jan 10, 2010 5:19 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 "Sa= fer 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 tho= se 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 han= ger, I have no accidents.
And, "= You probably only have to look at the recent LML discussions to answe= r that question for yourself."
PLEASE.... We have= established that LNC-4's are the most unsafe of all the Lancair's. And th= ose 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. LN= C-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 thin= k you are?
 
 
Randy Stuart<= /EM>
LNC-2
Fast - Safe - Insure= d - Accident Free
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:0= 9 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Acc= idents 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)management.
 =
Gotcha #1.  Left Madison, Wisc, minetes ah= ead 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 emp= ty because cap loose under the old style cover.  Landed without incid= ent on the Tri-state (prior to concrete being laid.)
 =
Gotcha #2.&nb= sp; 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 passen= ger in back seat as there is a second selector there.  Henceforth car= ried a vicegrip as do about 1/3 of the knowledgeable T-6 pilots.
 =
Gotcha #3.&nb= sp; In a twin comanche with tip tanks.  Heated hangar in N. Wisc.&nbs= p; Drained during preflight a small amount of fuel from the twins peculiar= low point central drain.  Left for Florida, with full mains, full au= x 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 swit= h to left Aux tank, engine quites, back to main everything ok.  Same= with rt engine.  Analysis frozen water in both aux tanks.  Afte= r landing and over night in heated hanger drain over a gallon of water fro= m sump.  A/c always hangared!
 =
Gotcha#4.&nbs= p;I was checking out a CFI in a tailwheel Aeronca Champ, 85hp it had a fue= l 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 au= x 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 hopefull= y no more GOTCHA'S.
 =
Bob Mitchell<= /SPAN>
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 rel= iance on the totalizer can leave you in the lurch, and a bad one at that.&= nbsp; If a leak develops upstream of the fuel totalizer sensor, or you lea= ve a fuel cap off, you can be draining or vacuuming a large fraction of yo= ur fuel overboard, but the fuel totalizer does not recognize this loss, no= r will you, if you rely only on the totalizer. 
 
Accordingly, we need a means of sens= ing, 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
 

=3D ----------MB_8CC60113AE94331_6D0_153C4_webmail-stg-d11.sysops.aol.com--