X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:44:21 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [198.64.152.110] (HELO sdc.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTP id 5047855 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:02:46 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.64.152.110; envelope-from=ronald@sdc.com Received: from [172.20.10.4] [166.205.143.223] by sdc.com with ESMTP (SMTPD-11.5) id 35e40002588ad1ba; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:52:09 -0400 User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 X-Original-Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:02:04 -0700 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: another Lancair From: RONALD STEVENS X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: another Lancair In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3393176528_231194" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3393176528_231194 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Hi Mark=20 I also agree with Ronald=B9s remarks, some folks are not executing well when it comes to an engine out=8Abut=8A.I also agree that you don=B9t hear about a lot of Cessna engine outs either. The other thing I would add to Ronald=B9s note is that our forward speed is much higher, impacts with stationary objects release far more energy than say deads ticking something that stalls at 40 or 50 knots. That is why I would advocate to install High-G impact seats and AmSafe Seat belt airbags to increase you chances. But in any case it is better to slide on your belly then pancake it from 100ft high. Sure a direct impact with a tree or similar is never desirable, but a field, even a bit rough, is not a bad choice when the 'shit hits the fan'. But trying to increase the glide, is never a good choice (unless you have a full feather or counter weighted prop, then this would at least give you a better chance but still at the same best glide speed). I personally think you should never leave out safety options if you can hav= e them for the sake of a few dollars (you have to see this in the big scheme of things, spending 20k for a prop, 10k for seat belts on a 400k plane, is less than 8% for safety, not a bad deal, right?. Perhaps I am talking too much about this, but each time I see an accident i= t gets to me, so if I stepped on some toes, than I apologize for this. The good news is that there are people in here who really care and really are giving us the tools to improve this, and I thank you for that. -- Ronald =20 =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 9:35 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: another Lancair =20 Jeff,=20 =20 I would like to go to Airventure, but this is a very busy time at work, so = I can't take vacation during July or August. I have only been to OSH once, and that was pre-LOBO. =20 I work in occupational safety, and is probably why I keep asking these questions. I'm looking for a common root cause, but I'm not hearing it. I have a hard time convincing myself that all of these Lancair pilots sitting in the left seat with an engine running at full power keep making life-ending decisions. If there is fuel in the tanks, the engine should keep running unless the pilot shuts off the mags, shuts off the fuel, or th= e engine blows up. I doubt that Cessna pilots have this track record? That indicates to me that there may be something more to this than simple pilot error. =20 =20 I am aware of one rotary engine fatal crash where the engine quit on takeoff. The pilot tried to make the "impossible turn" and crashed. The cause was determined to be a faulty fuel system design. I can't help but wonder if there may be a gremlin lurking somewhere in our fuel system. =20 --B_3393176528_231194 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Mark<= /span> 

I also agree with Ronald’s rem= arks, some folks are not executing well when it comes to an engine out…but….I also agree that you = don’t hear about a lot of Cessna engine outs either.  The other thing I woul= d add to Ronald’s note is that our forward speed is much higher, impact= s with stationary objects release far more energy than say deads ticking some= thing that stalls at 40 or 50 knots.<= o:p>

That is why I would advocate to install High-G impact seats and = AmSafe Seat belt airbags to increase you chances. But in any case it is bett= er to slide on your belly then pancake it from 100ft high. Sure a direct imp= act with a tree or similar is never desirable, but a field, even a bit rough= , is not a bad choice when the 'shit hits the fan'. But trying to increase t= he glide, is never a good choice (unless you have a full feather or counter = weighted prop, then this would at least give you a better chance but still a= t the same best glide speed).

I personally think you should never leave out safety options if you= can have them for the sake of a few dollars (you have to see this in the bi= g scheme of things, spending 20k for a prop, 10k for seat belts on a 400k pl= ane, is less than 8% for safety, not a bad deal, right?. =
Perhaps I am talking too much about this, but= each time I see an accident it gets to me, so if I stepped on some toes, th= an I apologize for this. The good news is that there are people in here who = really care and really are giving us the tools to improve this, and I thank = you for that.

=
-- Ronald

=  

 

From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 9:35 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: another Lancair=

 

Jeff, 

<= font size=3D"3" face=3D"Times New Roman"> 

= I would like to go to Airventure, but this is a very busy time at w= ork, so I can't take vacation during July or August.  I have only been to <= st1:city w:st=3D"on">OSH once, and= that was pre-LOBO.  

 

= I work in occupational safety, and is probably why I keep asking th= ese questions.  I'm looking for a common root cause, but I'm not hearing i= t.  I have a hard time convincing myself that all of these Lancair pilots= sitting in the left seat with an engine running at full power keep making life-ending decisions.  If there is fuel in the tanks, the engine shou= ld keep running unless the pilot shuts off the mags, shuts off the fuel, or th= e engine blows up.  I doubt that Cessna pilots have this track reco= rd?  That indicates to me that there may be something more to this than si= mple pilot error.  

 

= I am aware of one rotary engine fatal crash where the engine quit o= n takeoff.  The pilot tried to make the "impossible turn" and crashed.  The cause was determined to be a faulty fuel system design.  I can't help but wonder if there may be a gremlin lurking somewhere i= n our fuel system.  

 

 --B_3393176528_231194--