X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-da05.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.147] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6033937 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:04:33 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.147; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-db04.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-db04.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.202]) by imr-da05.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id F0B3B1C00012A for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:03:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mte004c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mte004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.236.77]) by mtaomg-db04.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id C71F8E000085 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:03:57 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com Full-name: Sky2high Message-ID: <1d293.714b8c04.3e385ddd@aol.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:03:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1d293.714b8c04.3e385ddd_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=1359414237; bh=63SC1ntRsSfZ/CfV8atBYZU45JQUiYpSIggNerOOBSs=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=YeRuzVgTDkSfWgRXqVj4lBguX1qipbxZo9JZT5b1moIMrkXQIXip2XYzFk6X0BCyb 2aeaGDaFY93q+s2ERsqT7UrzWB4dDmg7xYxVdQFb5yjBD4Hxg77Aqs7QL+1HCAF8Df Pzp7sHNH6FwRdrNF29Jp4A94l9fcKMrW2ZYJxbcA= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:431157472:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d33ca510703dd527a --part1_1d293.714b8c04.3e385ddd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en Terrence, =20 Interesting. I specifically chose the Navy F-15 performing a carrier=20 landing because that F15 is equipped with an AOA. The 172 - who knows? =20 AOA is one item that may make a big difference in forestalling low altitude= =20 stall/spin incidents.=20 =20 Grayhawk =20 =20 In a message dated 1/28/2013 1:50:06 P.M. Central Standard Time, =20 troneill@charter.net writes: Grayhawk, =20 Yes. =20 Also some might have noticed the EAA's Flight Advisor Program (FA). As I= =20 recall, the first year, it almost eliminated first-flight-accidents. What= =20 it did was have the 'test pilot' go over with his FA some furnished forms= =20 that showed him how to review the new plane's wing loading and power loadi= ng=20 against his recent- experience-plane's ... and when there was disparity,= =20 strongly recommend he get checked out for getting experience in something= =20 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 =20 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_ (mailto:Sky2high@aol.com) = =20 wrote: 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_ (mailto: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 b= e perfect all=20 of the time.=20 =20 Pete =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =3D --part1_1d293.714b8c04.3e385ddd_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en
Terrence,
 
Interesting.  I specifically chose the Navy F-15 performing= =20 a carrier landing because that F15 is equipped with an AOA.  The = 172 -=20 who knows?
 
AOA is one item that may make a big difference in forestalling low alt= itude=20 stall/spin incidents. 
 
Grayhawk
 
In a message dated 1/28/2013 1:50:06 P.M. Central Standard Time,=20 troneill@charter.net writes:
= Grayhawk,=20

Yes.  
Also some might have noticed  the EAA's Flight Advisor Program = (FA).=20  As I recall, the first year, it almost eliminated=20 first-flight-accidents.  What it did was have the 'test pilot' go ov= er=20 with his FA some furnished forms that showed him how to review the new pl= ane's=20 wing loading and power loading against his recent-=20 experience-plane's ... and when there was disparity, strongly recommend h= e get=20 checked out for getting experience in something with power loading and wi= ng=20 loading similar to his new plane's. FWIW. 

I might sneak in an observation... that we're still talking about st= all=20 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:
<= FONT=20 color=3D#000000 size=3D2 face=3DArial>
Pete,
 
Uh, a slightly different view is that the=20 Lancair accident pilot, relative to other pilots, is less=20 safe.  Possibly because he/she didn't rise to the  demands=20 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= =20 training and respect for the aircraft?  BTW, some don't make it th= rough=20 the 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, = pete@leapfrogventures.com= =20 writes:

I=20 don=E2=80=99t think the issue here is whether the IV can be flown saf= ely.  It=20 can.  Those of us on the forum are proof of such (full disclosur= e =E2=80=93 I=20 fly an ES-P).  The issue is how much margin of error the plane o= ffers=20 when the pilot makes a mistake.  Even the best of us make=20 mistakes.  Whether those mistakes kill us or not is a function o= f how=20 many we make in a row, how bad they are, and how much margin for erro= r the=20 plane gives us.  The first two are relatively independent of the= =20 plane you are flying.  The third is entirely dependent.  A = plane=20 like the IV, with very narrow margins of safety, will kill more pilot= s=20 than a plane that has a much broader set of safety margins because pi= lots=20 are human and make mistakes.

 

So,=20 in my opinion, relative to most other planes, the Lancair is less=20 safe.  Let=E2=80=99s stop pretending otherwise.  That is ju= st part of=20 the price we pay for high performance.  If you make a bad mistak= e, it=20 is much more likely to kill you, which is why it has such a poor safe= ty=20 record.  This is not the plane=E2=80=99s fault.  Rather, it= is because=20 we as pilots can=E2=80=99t be perfect all of the time.

 

Pete

 


=3D --part1_1d293.714b8c04.3e385ddd_boundary--