X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-da02.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.144] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6034040 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:30:59 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.144; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.138]) by imr-da02.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 5F2311C00015C for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:30:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mnb004a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mnb004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.106.141]) by mtaomg-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id ED3CCE00008B for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:30:22 -0500 (EST) References: To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CFCBCEF5CA472D_1B80_14D22F_webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 37309-STANDARD Received: from 12.110.229.82 by webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com (205.188.103.149) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:30:22 -0500 Message-Id: <8CFCBCEF5BE6048-1B80-67D54@webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [12.110.229.82] Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:30:22 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1359419423; bh=liVlvLvC3Kq8fsfFVTdj0F/iKRyYCpcrQIDsJYIRxXQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=pfE8TcrVLYJ+0j+JDLs/y157esb5s121KcAIhXD4P7/0GHaFho/qVam/7uvuo3+Wv rsoaG05ADJzVArwOXCLnihC9EyjON2M0F94IB1M7vjp/D8QIHI2gNt+Szb1EYZgEuQ FdhtoM2JHb9cq3X3s7oKaLL357zEDmA19BLfjbQI= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:417508800:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d338a5107181e1c55 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CFCBCEF5CA472D_1B80_14D22F_webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" you won't know the rate because you don't have any hours flown data..... accident rate for each version -----Original Message----- From: Bill Bradburry To: lml Sent: Mon, Jan 28, 2013 2:26 pm Subject: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN Colin, =20 It would be interesting to see the Lancairinformation broken down by number= of aircraft flying by version of Lancair vs theaccident rate for each vers= ion. Does anyone have such information? =20 Bill B =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Coly= n Case Sent: Monday, January 28, 20132:50 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN =20 Pete, =20 You make some good points but I don't think that is the whole story. =20 How many times worse would you expect the Lancair accidentrate to be bas= ed on the theory of intersecting a more demanding plane with thefallibility= of normal competent pilots? =20 Here are some numbers I dug up for a presentation I did at Sedona lastyear: =20 Fatal accident rates per 100,000 hours. (formatted for a powerpointslide): =E2=80=A2 Airlines - ~.01 (base line) =E2=80=A2 GA rate =E2=80=93 1.11 (100X) =E2=80=A2 Experimental =E2=80=93 2.33 (200X) =E2=80=A2 Lancair -~5 (500X) =20 =20 The Mitsubishi MU-2 is a plane that had horrendous accident rates whenopera= ted by IFR rated commercial pilots. It is demanding, and alsodifferent. H= owever, with a similar fleet size to the IV series, itrecently has had 1 f= atality in 3 years, a dramatic improvement. Thedifference has been mandato= ry training. =20 What I see in the Lancair fleet, particularly in the bigger fastermodels, i= s the intersection of a more demanding airplane with less well trainedpilot= s, often with a "nobody can tell me what to do" or a "itdidn't kill me last= time" attitude. For some, it may be simply thatthey don't realize what th= ey are getting into. A lot of the accidentpilots were never on LML and/or= never got proper training. =20 =20 As a community, we have the option of training to a more demandinglevel. = Would we still have higher accident rates than we wish if we gotall that do= ne? Probably. Would it be anywhere near as bad as it isnow? No. =20 Personally I think even GA rates are unconscionably bad. They aredriven by= the "personal flying" segment pilots that don't have thebenefit of rigorou= s training and regular proficiency work. In the Lancairfleet we recognize = the issue and we do have the option of more rigoroustraining. We also have= the option of influencing our peers to get it. =20 =20 I don't see why with some effort we can't be below the Experimentalaccident= rate of 200X worse than airlines within the next 3 years. =20 =20 Colyn =20 On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:38 PM, pete@leapfrogventures.comwrote: =20 I don=E2=80=99t think theissue here is whether the IV can be flown safely. = It can. Those ofus on the forum are proof of such (full disclosure =E2=80= =93 I fly an ES-P). Theissue is how much margin of error the plane offers = when the pilot makes amistake. Even the best of us make mistakes. Whether= those mistakeskill us or not is a function of how many we make in a row, h= ow bad they are,and how much margin for error the plane gives us. The firs= t two arerelatively independent of the plane you are flying. The third is = entirelydependent. A plane like the IV, with very narrow margins of safety= , willkill more pilots than a plane that has a much broader set of safety m= arginsbecause pilots are human and make mistakes. =20 So, in my opinion,relative to most other planes, the Lancair is less safe. = Let=E2=80=99s stoppretending otherwise. That is just part of the price we= pay for highperformance. If you make a bad mistake, it is much more likel= y to killyou, which is why it has such a poor safety record. This is not t= heplane=E2=80=99s fault. Rather, it is because we as pilots can=E2=80=99t = be perfect all ofthe time. =20 Pete =20 =20 =20 ----------MB_8CFCBCEF5CA472D_1B80_14D22F_webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
you won't know the rate because you don't have any hours flo= wn data.....
accident rate for each version
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Mon, Jan 28, 2013 2:26 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN

Colin,
 
It would be = interesting to see the Lancair information broken down by number of aircraft flying by version of Lancair = vs the accident rate for each version.  Does anyone have such information?
 
Bill B
 
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Colyn Case
Sent: Monday, January 28, = 2013 2:50 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: 4P AUGE= RING IN
 
Pete,
 
You make some good points but I don't think that i= s 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):
=E2= =80=A2   &nb= sp; Airlines - ~.01        &nbs= p;  (base line)
=E2= =80=A2   &nb= sp; GA rate =E2= =80=93 1.11           (100X)
=E2= =80=A2   &nb= sp; Experimental=  =E2= =80=93 2.33 (200X)
=E2= =80=A2   &nb= sp; Lancair - ~5            &= nbsp;   (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 t= he bigger faster models, is the intersection of a more demanding airplane with less well tra= ined 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 unconscionabl= y 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 Lan= cair 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.  &n= bsp;
 
Colyn
 
On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:38 PM, pete@leapfrogventures.com wrote:
 
I don=E2=80=99t 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 =E2=80=93 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 mista= kes 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 enti= rely dependent.  A plane like the IV, with very narrow margins of safety, w= ill 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=E2=80=99= s 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 kil= l you, which is why it has such a poor safety record.  This 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.
 
= Pete
 
 
----------MB_8CFCBCEF5CA472D_1B80_14D22F_webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com--