X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:49:31 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.65] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6033431 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:04:26 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.65; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=SdeUCUumdkmt8BVax2j/QfseTo8zCgHSrWJwpivGMlqVVzpXv2qaC9vJfyzVKZYx; h=Received:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [70.20.32.152] (helo=[192.168.1.24]) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Tztzi-0003P8-9T; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:03:50 -0500 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-58-988024349 From: Colyn Case In-Reply-To: X-Original-Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:03:49 -0500 X-Original-Cc: Colyn Case X-Original-Message-Id: References: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da940588c6ef95a9edab5278dc563a293482e350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 70.20.32.152 --Apple-Mail-58-988024349 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Pete, You make some good points but I don't think that is the whole story. How many times worse would you expect the Lancair accident rate to be = based on the theory of intersecting a more demanding plane with the = fallibility of normal competent pilots? Here are some numbers I dug up for a presentation I did at Sedona last = year: Fatal accident rates per 100,000 hours. (formatted for a powerpoint = slide): =95Airlines - ~.01 (base line)=0D =95GA rate =96 1.11 (100X) =95Experimental =96 2.33 (200X) =95Lancair - ~5 (500X) The Mitsubishi MU-2 is a plane that had horrendous accident rates when = operated by IFR rated commercial pilots. It is demanding, and also = different. However, with a similar fleet size to the IV series, it = recently has had 1 fatality in 3 years, a dramatic improvement. The = difference has been mandatory training. What I see in the Lancair fleet, particularly in the bigger faster = models, is the intersection of a more demanding airplane with less well = trained pilots, often with a "nobody can tell me what to do" or a "it = didn't kill me last time" attitude. For some, it may be simply that = they don't realize what they are getting into. A lot of the accident = pilots were never on LML and/or never got proper training. =20 As a community, we have the option of training to a more demanding = level. Would we still have higher accident rates than we wish if we = got all that done? Probably. Would it be anywhere near as bad as it is = now? No. Personally I think even GA rates are unconscionably bad. They are = driven by the "personal flying" segment pilots that don't have the = benefit of rigorous training and regular proficiency work. In the = Lancair fleet we recognize the issue and we do have the option of more = rigorous training. We also have the option of influencing our peers to = get it. =20 I don't see why with some effort we can't be below the Experimental = accident rate of 200X worse than airlines within the next 3 years. =20 Colyn On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:38 PM, pete@leapfrogventures.com wrote: I don=92t think the issue here is whether the IV can be flown safely. = It can. Those of us on the forum are proof of such (full disclosure =96 = I fly an ES-P). The issue is how much margin of error the plane offers = when the pilot makes a mistake. Even the best of us make mistakes. = Whether those mistakes kill us or not is a function of how many we make = in a row, how bad they are, and how much margin for error the plane = gives us. The first two are relatively independent of the plane you are = flying. The third is entirely dependent. A plane like the IV, with = very narrow margins of safety, will kill more pilots than a plane that = has a much broader set of safety margins because pilots are human and = make mistakes. =20 So, in my opinion, relative to most other planes, the Lancair is less = safe. Let=92s stop pretending otherwise. That is just part of the = price we pay for high performance. If you make a bad mistake, it is = much more likely to kill you, which is why it has such a poor safety = record. This is not the plane=92s fault. Rather, it is because we as = pilots can=92t be perfect all of the time. =20 Pete =20 --Apple-Mail-58-988024349 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Pete,

You make some good points = but I don't think that is the whole = story.

   How many times worse would = you expect the Lancair accident rate to be based on the theory of = intersecting a more demanding plane with the fallibility of normal = competent pilots?

Here are some numbers I dug = up for a presentation I did at Sedona last = year:

Fatal accident rates per 100,000 hours. = (formatted for a powerpoint slide):
=95Airlines - = ~.01          =  (base line)=0D
=95GA rate =96 1.11           = (100X)
=95Experimental =96 2.33 (200X)
=95Lancair - ~5              =   (500X)


The = Mitsubishi MU-2 is a plane that had horrendous accident rates when = operated by IFR rated commercial pilots.  It is demanding, and also = different.  However,  with a similar fleet size to the IV = series, it recently has had 1 fatality in 3 years, a dramatic = improvement.  The difference has been mandatory = training.

What I see in the Lancair fleet, = particularly in the bigger faster models, is the intersection of a more = demanding airplane with less well trained pilots, often with a "nobody = can tell me what to do" or a "it didn't kill me last time" attitude. =  For some, it may be simply that they don't realize what they are = getting into.   A lot of the accident pilots were never on LML = and/or never got proper training. =   

As a community, we have the option = of training to a more demanding level.   Would we still have higher = accident rates than we wish if we got all that done?  Probably. =  Would it be anywhere near as bad as it is now?   = No.

Personally I think even GA rates are = unconscionably bad.  They are driven by the "personal flying" = segment pilots that don't have the benefit of rigorous training and = regular proficiency work.  In the Lancair fleet we recognize the = issue and we do have the option of more rigorous training.  We also = have the option of influencing our peers to get it.   =  

I don't see why with some effort we = can't be below the Experimental accident rate of 200X worse than = airlines within the next 3 years. =   

Colyn

On = Jan 28, 2013, at 12:38 PM, pete@leapfrogventures.com = wrote:

I = don=92t think the issue here is whether the IV can be flown = safely.  It can.  Those of us on the forum are proof of such = (full disclosure =96 I fly an ES-P).  The issue is how much margin = of error the plane offers when the pilot makes a mistake.  Even the = best of us make mistakes.  Whether those mistakes kill us or not is = a function of how many we make in a row, how bad they are, and how much = margin for error the plane gives us.  The first two are relatively = independent of the plane you are flying.  The third is entirely = dependent.  A plane like the IV, with very narrow margins of = safety, will kill more pilots than a plane that has a much broader set = of safety margins because pilots are human and make = mistakes.
So, = in my opinion, relative to most other planes, the Lancair is less = safe.  Let=92s stop pretending otherwise.  That is just part = of the price we pay for high performance.  If you make a bad = mistake, it is much more likely to kill you, which is why it has such a = poor safety record.  This is not the plane=92s fault.  Rather, = it is because we as pilots can=92t be perfect all of the = time.