X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma02.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.40] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6034146 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:19:48 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.40; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-ma06.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-ma06.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.13]) by imr-ma02.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 8C8A81C000086 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:19:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mnb004a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mnb004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.106.141]) by mtaomg-ma06.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id C867AE000089 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:19:12 -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_8CFCBDE2913D0F4_1AE4_14781A_webmailstg-d04.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 37309-STANDARD Received: from 24.107.65.42 by webmailstg-d04.sysops.aol.com (205.188.103.150) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:19:11 -0500 Message-Id: <8CFCBDE290A4B70-1AE4-65CA4@webmailstg-d04.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [24.107.65.42] Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:19:12 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1359425953; bh=yKu+C0UtZJWPX2Zjhwv4C3keYpM/RftRvNlB8rF6fpw=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=xClL2YxtCzPKO/kb5myWzApmFqISKff0DQz8TA7if2yTXRZRwjio2Jgwg3CPS+Osa DyqmCsewrAyJsj24mayuNEA9hHN6R/AZrZjces+QmycULAcyFP5JV5FtO1Gb0O3f5f Md9I/UwcX1fb1uuvvdlcgvuivIEefCRJE1ysyDR8= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:387688960:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d290d510731a02723 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CFCBDE2913D0F4_1AE4_14781A_webmailstg-d04.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Colyn, Great analysis. jeff -----Original Message----- From: Colyn Case To: lml Sent: Mon, Jan 28, 2013 1:49 pm Subject: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN 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 ba= sed on the theory of intersecting a more demanding plane with the fallibili= ty 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=A2Airlines - ~.01 (base line) =E2=80=A2GA rate =E2=80=93 1.11 (100X) =E2=80=A2Experimental =E2=80=932.33 (200X) =E2=80=A2Lancair - ~5 (500X) The Mitsubishi MU-2 is a plane that had horrendous accident rates when oper= ated 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 man= datory 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 pil= ots, often with a "nobody can tell me what to do" or a "it didn't kill me l= ast time" attitude. For some, it may be simply that they don't realize wha= t they are getting into. A lot of the accident pilots were never on LML a= nd/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 b= y the "personal flying" segment pilots that don't have the benefit of rigor= ous training and regular proficiency work. In the Lancair fleet we recogni= ze 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 acciden= t 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=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 off= ers when the pilot makes a mistake. Even the best of us make mistakes. Wh= ether 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. T= he first two are relatively independent of the plane you are flying. The t= hird 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 o= f 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=E2=80=99s 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 li= kely to kill you, which is why it has such a poor safety record. This is n= ot the plane=E2=80=99s fault. Rather, it is because we as pilots can=E2=80= =99t be perfect all of the time. =20 Pete =20 =20 ----------MB_8CFCBDE2913D0F4_1AE4_14781A_webmailstg-d04.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Colyn,
 
Great analysis.
 
jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Colyn Case <colyncase@earthlink.net>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Mon, Jan 28, 2013 1:49 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN

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 acciden= t rate to be based on the theory of intersecting a more demanding plane wit= h 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 sl= ide):
=E2=80=A2Airlines - ~.01           (base line)
=E2=80=A2GA rate =E2=80=93 1.11         =   (100X)
=E2=80=A2Experimental =E2=80=93 2.33 (200X)
=E2=80=A2Lancair - ~5&nbs= p;               (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 d= ifferent.  However,  with a similar fleet size to the IV series, = it recently has had 1 fatality in 3 years, a dramatic improvement.  Th= e difference has been mandatory training.

What I see in the Lancair fleet, particularly in the bigger faster mod= els, is the intersection of a more demanding airplane with less well traine= d 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 r= ealize 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 lev= el.   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 i= t is now?   No.

Personally I think even GA rates are unconscionably bad.  They ar= e driven by the "personal flying" segment pilots that don't have the benefi= t of rigorous training and regular proficiency work.  In the Lancair f= leet we recognize the issue and we do have the option of more rigorous trai= ning.  We also have the option of influencing our peers to get it. &nb= sp;  

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

Colyn

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

I don=E2=80=99t think the issue here is w= hether the IV can be flown safely.  It can.  Those of us on the f= orum 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= 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=E2=80=99s stop pretending othe= rwise.  That is just part of the price we pay for high performance.&nb= sp; 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=E2=80=99= s fault.  Rather, it is because we as pilots can=E2=80=99t be perfect = all of the time.
 
Pete
 

 ----------MB_8CFCBDE2913D0F4_1AE4_14781A_webmailstg-d04.sysops.aol.com--