X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:50:13 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-db02.mx.aol.com ([205.188.91.96] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6033444 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:08:47 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.91.96; envelope-from=peterpaw@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-ma03.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-ma03.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.10]) by imr-db02.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id EAE301C000131 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:08:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mma004b.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mma004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.191.141]) by mtaomg-ma03.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id BEFCEE000099; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:08:10 -0500 (EST) References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net, lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: peter williams X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CFCBA1F237B005_1708_AAAE7_webmail-m001.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 37309-STANDARD Received: from 69.204.230.119 by webmail-m001.sysops.aol.com (64.12.101.83) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:08:09 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CFCBA1F22E2A85-1708-32995@webmail-m001.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [69.204.230.119] X-Original-Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:08:09 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:420561824:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d290a5106cc9a2c82 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CFCBA1F237B005_1708_AAAE7_webmail-m001.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" =20 hi there this is why i started this thread; i wanted this information to be out ther= e for the next person who encounters a Lancair 4 for the first time, i surv= ived without this information, but it would have been nice to have. pete =20 -----Original Message----- From: Sky2high To: lml Sent: Mon, Jan 28, 2013 1:48 pm Subject: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN 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 perf= orm 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@leap= frogventures.com writes: =20 =20 I don=E2=80=99t think the issue here is whether the IV can be flown safel= y. It can. Those of us on the forum are proof of such (full disclosure = =E2=80=93 I fly an ES-P). The issue is how much margin of error the plan= e offers when the pilot makes a mistake. Even the best of us make mistak= es. Whether those mistakes kill us or not is a function of how many we m= ake in a row, how bad they are, and how much margin for error the plane g= ives us. The first two are relatively independent of the plane you are f= lying. 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 m= uch broader set of safety margins because pilots are human and make mis= takes. =20 =20 =20 So, in my opinion, relative to most other planes, the Lancair is less saf= e. Let=E2=80=99s stop pretending otherwise. That is just part of the pr= ice we pay for high performance. If you make a bad mistake, it is much m= ore likely to kill you, which is why it has such a poor safety record. T= his is not the plane=E2=80=99s fault. Rather, it is because we as pilots= can=E2=80=99t be perfect all of the time. =20 =20 =20 =20 Pete =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 ----------MB_8CFCBA1F237B005_1708_AAAE7_webmail-m001.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"

hi there

this is why i started this thread; i wanted this information to be out ther= e for the next person who encounters a Lancair 4 for the first time, i surv= ived without this information, but it would have been nice to have.

pete
=
-----= Original Message-----
From: Sky2high <Sky2high@aol.com>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Mon, Jan 28, 2013 1:48 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN

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:
=20
=20
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.
=20
 
=20
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.
=20
 
=20
=20
Pete
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
 
----------MB_8CFCBA1F237B005_1708_AAAE7_webmail-m001.sysops.aol.com--