X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma04.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.42] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6033432 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:47:48 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.42; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-ma03.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-ma03.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.10]) by imr-ma04.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 39F141C000069 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:47:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mte004c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mte004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.236.77]) by mtaomg-ma03.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 303F3E000088 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:47:12 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com Full-name: Sky2high Message-ID: <1840.55ede990.3e3821b0@aol.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:47:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1840.55ede990.3e3821b0_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.6 sub 168 X-Originating-IP: [67.175.156.123] x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1359398833; bh=/KnkGYFV+7x4kF7nbByIv8x3L/D24N/jaCvF4FBMCzI=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=RQ+HYtCHqshJmrHF4COEzp9vuKN3XPdlGN19mWIg/oCC+l2Ds9sLD6aSoZZWPSADU 65/p9uMZde2ax1IcKq2g4RwmE9oH4LMi9943ftAqcYm7qjbKD6P8baH7yiuzGrQUzB tl18UHPThPsz8KNGnnSNu0IO+zhib0WDPXrbSUSE= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:393360704:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d290a5106c7b00ea4 --part1_1840.55ede990.3e3821b0_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en Pete, =20 Uh, a slightly different view is that the Lancair accident pilot, relative= =20 to other pilots, is less safe. Possibly because he/she didn't rise to the= =20 demands of a high-performance plane. IMHO =20 Would you expect a highly experienced 172 pilot to always successfully=20 perform a carrier landing in a very safe F-15 without training and respect= for=20 the aircraft? BTW, some don't make it through the training. =20 OK, that's a stretch. But the idea is the same. =20 I'll go back to my padded cell now, =20 Grayhawk =20 =20 In a message dated 1/28/2013 11:38:33 A.M. Central Standard Time, =20 pete@leapfrogventures.com writes: =20 I don=E2=80=99t think the issue here is whether the IV can be flown safely= . It =20 can. Those of us on the forum are proof of such (full disclosure =E2=80=93= I fly an=20 ES-P). The issue is how much margin of error the plane offers when the=20 pilot makes a mistake. Even the best of us make mistakes. Whether those= =20 mistakes kill us or not is a function of how many we make in a row, how ba= d=20 they are, and how much margin for error the plane gives us. The first two= =20 are relatively independent of the plane you are flying. The third is=20 entirely dependent. A plane like the IV, with very narrow margins of safe= ty, will=20 kill more pilots than a plane that has a much broader set of safety=20 margins because pilots are human and make mistakes.=20 So, in my opinion, relative to most other planes, the Lancair is less=20 safe. Let=E2=80=99s stop pretending otherwise. That is just part of the = price we pay =20 for high performance. If you make a bad mistake, it is much more likely = =20 to kill you, which is why it has such a poor safety record. This is not t= he=20 plane=E2=80=99s fault. Rather, it is because we as pilots can=E2=80=99t be= perfect all=20 of the time.=20 =20 Pete =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 --part1_1840.55ede990.3e3821b0_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en

Pete,

Uh, a slightly different view is that the Lancair accident p= ilot,=20 relative to other pilots, is less safe. Possibly because he/she didn'= t=20 rise to the demands of a high-performance plane. IMHO

Would you expect a highly experienced 172 pilot to always=20 successfully perform a carrier landing in a very safe F-15 without tra= ining=20 and respect for the aircraft? BTW, some don't make it through the=20 training.

OK, that's a stretch. But the idea is the same.

I'll go back to my padded cell now,

Grayhawk

In a message dated 1/28/2013 11:38:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,=20 pete@leapfrogventures.com writes:

=

I=20 don=E2=80=99t think the issue here is whether the IV can be flown safely.= It=20 can. Those of us on the forum are proof of such (full disclosure = =E2=80=93 I fly=20 an ES-P). The issue is how much margin of error the plane offers wh= en=20 the pilot makes a mistake. Even the best of us make mistakes. = =20 Whether those mistakes kill us or not is a function of how many we make i= n a=20 row, how bad they are, and how much margin for error the plane gives us.&= nbsp;=20 The first two are relatively independent of the plane you are flying.&nbs= p;=20 The third is entirely dependent. A plane like the IV, with very nar= row=20 margins of safety, will kill more pilots than a plane that has a much bro= ader=20 set of safety margins because pilots are human and make=20 mistakes.

So,=20 in my opinion, relative to most other planes, the Lancair is less safe.&n= bsp;=20 Let=E2=80=99s stop pretending otherwise. That is just part of the p= rice we pay=20 for high performance. If you make a bad mistake, it is much more li= kely=20 to kill you, which is why it has such a poor safety record. This is= not=20 the plane=E2=80=99s fault. Rather, it is because we as pilots can= =E2=80=99t be perfect=20 all of the time.

Pete

--part1_1840.55ede990.3e3821b0_boundary--