X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:49:57 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mta21.charter.net ([216.33.127.81] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6033478 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:04:38 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.33.127.81; envelope-from=troneill@charter.net Received: from imp09 ([10.20.200.9]) by mta21.charter.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.09 201-2260-151-124-20120717) with ESMTP id <20130128190402.UQGY10448.mta21.charter.net@imp09> for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:04:02 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([75.132.241.174]) by imp09 with smtp.charter.net id tX421k00K3mUFT705X42bU; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:04:02 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=Cp/n6QED c=1 sm=1 a=VxlS/kh5Y2KhHY/Xui1ATg==:17 a=3ECXb6GesPAA:10 a=yUnIBFQkZM0A:10 a=hOpmn2quAAAA:8 a=tNDxKCid19EA:10 a=3oc9M9_CAAAA:8 a=Z3gcRS8DAAAA:8 a=WPz9Im0Vl4OSjFJWXJ0A:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=U8Ie8EnqySEA:10 a=NzvJW0xkwboA:10 a=AvngOWrUbFCl2t7Fy8MA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=mNqrP59C39Z7vVf8:21 a=VxlS/kh5Y2KhHY/Xui1ATg==:117 From: Terrence O'Neill Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-146-988036573 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN X-Original-Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:04:02 -0600 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: X-Original-Message-Id: <0F9D80DC-077A-4BB3-B706-086976484CAD@charter.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) --Apple-Mail-146-988036573 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Grayhawk, Yes. =20 Also some might have noticed the EAA's Flight Advisor Program (FA). As = I recall, the first year, it almost eliminated first-flight-accidents. = What it did was have the 'test pilot' go over with his FA some furnished = forms that showed him how to review the new plane's wing loading and = power loading against his recent- experience-plane's ... and when there = was disparity, strongly recommend he get checked out for getting = experience in something with power loading and wing loading similar to = his new plane's. FWIW.=20 I might sneak in an observation... that we're still talking about stall = SPEEDS instead of stall ANGLE of attack. I'm just sayin' ... Terrence LNC2 235/320 211AL On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote: > Pete, > =20 > Uh, a slightly different view is that the Lancair accident pilot, = relative to other pilots, is less safe. Possibly because he/she didn't = rise to the demands of a high-performance plane. IMHO > =20 > Would you expect a highly experienced 172 pilot to always successfully = perform a carrier landing in a very safe F-15 without training and = respect for 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 > In a message dated 1/28/2013 11:38:33 A.M. Central Standard Time, = pete@leapfrogventures.com writes: > 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 > =20 >=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 > =20 >=20 > Pete >=20 > =20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-146-988036573 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Sky2high@aol.com = wrote:
Pete,
 
Uh, a slightly different view is that the = Lancair accident pilot,=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 = training=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=92t 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 = =96 I fly=20 an ES-P).  The issue is how much margin of error the plane offers = when=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 in a=20 row, how bad they are, and how much margin for error the plane gives = us. =20 The first two are relatively independent of the plane you are = flying. =20 The third is entirely dependent.  A plane like the IV, with very = narrow=20 margins of safety, will kill more pilots than a plane that has a much = broader=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. =20 Let=92s 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=20 the plane=92s fault.  Rather, it is because we as pilots can=92t = be perfect=20 all of the time.

 

Pete

 

=
= --Apple-Mail-146-988036573--