X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:31:12 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from p3plex2out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net ([184.168.131.12] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6035724 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:09:36 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=184.168.131.12; envelope-from=pete@leapfrogventures.com Received: from P3PW5EX1HT001.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.19]) by p3plex2out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with secureserver.net id tx901k0040RWb6o01x90Jp; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:09:00 -0700 Received: from P3PW5EX1MB14.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.87]) by P3PW5EX1HT001.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.19]) with mapi; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:09:00 -0700 From: "pete@leapfrogventures.com" X-Original-To: "lml@lancaironline.net" X-Original-Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:08:54 -0700 Subject: RE: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN Thread-Index: Ac3+D/mQuf6UwZmiRPeV/GXBE6idHgAURYwA X-Original-Message-ID: <2A14E6258A8534418F5498D73CCA51EF223D799C17@P3PW5EX1MB14.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2A14E6258A8534418F5498D73CCA51EF223D799C17P3PW5EX1MB14E_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_2A14E6258A8534418F5498D73CCA51EF223D799C17P3PW5EX1MB14E_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You are comparing apples and oranges. The issue with MU-2s was that they w= ere being flown by professional pilots without correct training, not withou= t enough training. When the training was changed to stress the unique aspe= cts of the plane, the accident rate dropped precipitously. Airlines have lower accident rates because the pilots fly multiple flights = every day. GA pilots fly typically once or twice a month on average. IMHO= , pilots who fly Lancairs are not on average better pilots than the rest of= the GA pilot population. I know plenty of pilots that fly Cubs and Citabr= ias that can put us to shame with their aviator skills. I know after even= a week of not flying that I am more prone to making mistakes. I wish I co= uld fly all the time, but unfortunately flying is not my day job. I agree training is critical. But we need to accept that we are all mortal= pilots with human frailties, that we will make mistakes, that we fly very = unforgiving aircraft, and that we pay a price in both lives and insurance r= ates for that privilege. Pete From: Colyn Case [mailto:colyncase@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 11:50 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [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): * Airlines - ~.01 (base line) * GA rate - 1.11 (100X) * Experimental - 2.33 (200X) * Lancair - ~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. 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. 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. Colyn On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:38 PM, pete@leapfrogventures.com wrote: I don't 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 - I fly an E= S-P). The issue is how much margin of error the plane offers when the pilo= t 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 k= ill 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's stop pretending otherwise. That is just part of the price we pay f= or 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 p= lane's fault. Rather, it is because we as pilots can't be perfect all of t= he time. Pete --_000_2A14E6258A8534418F5498D73CCA51EF223D799C17P3PW5EX1MB14E_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You are c= omparing apples and oranges.  The issue with MU-2s was that they were = being flown by professional pilots without correct training, not without en= ough training.  When the training was changed to stress the unique asp= ects of the plane, the accident rate dropped precipitously.

 

Airlines have lower accident rates because the pilots fly mu= ltiple flights every day.  GA pilots fly typically once or twice a mon= th on average.  IMHO, pilots who fly Lancairs are not on average bette= r pilots than the rest of the GA pilot population.  I know plenty of p= ilots that fly Cubs and Citabrias that can put us to shame with their aviat= or skills.   I know after even a week of not flying that I am mor= e prone to making mistakes.  I wish I could fly all the time, but unfo= rtunately flying is not my day job.

 

I agree t= raining is critical.  But we need to accept that we are all mortal pil= ots with human frailties, that we will make mistakes, that we fly very unfo= rgiving aircraft, and that we pay a price in both lives and insurance rates= for that privilege.

 

Pete

 

From: Colyn Case [mailto:colyncase@= earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 11:50 AM
To:= lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN<= o:p>

 

=

Pete,

&nb= sp;

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 base= d 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 sli= de):

•   Airlines - ~.01        &nbs= p;  (base line) =

•   GA rate – 1.11     &nbs= p;     (100X)<= /span>

<= ![if !supportLists]>•   Experimental = 211; 2.33 (200X)<= /p>

•   Lancair - ~5    &nbs= p;           (500X)

 

 

The Mitsubishi MU-2 is a = plane that had horrendous accident rates when operated by IFR rated commerc= ial 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 mandator= y training.

 =

What I see in the Lancair fleet, partic= ularly in the bigger faster models, is the intersection of a more demanding= airplane with less well trained 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 get= ting into.   A lot of the accident pilots were never on LML and/or nev= er 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? &nb= sp;Probably.  Would it be anywhere near as bad as it is now?   No= .

 

=

Personally I think even GA rates are unconscionab= ly bad.  They are driven by the "personal flying" segment pi= lots that don't have the benefit of rigorous training and regular proficien= cy work.  In the Lancair fleet we recognize the issue and we do have t= he option of more rigorous training.  We also have the option of influ= encing our peers to get it.    

 

I don't s= ee why with some effort we can't be below the Experimental accident rate of= 200X worse than airlines within the next 3 years.   <= /p>

 

Colyn

 = ;

On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:38 PM, pete@leapfrogventures.com wro= te:

 

I don’t think the issue here is whether = the IV can be flown safely.  It can.  Those of us on the forum ar= e proof of such (full disclosure – I fly an ES-P).  The issue is= how much margin of error the plane offers when the pilot makes a mistake.&= nbsp; 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 rela= tively 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 ma= rgins because pilots are human and make mistakes.

 

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>So, in my opinion, relative to most other planes= , the Lancair is less safe.  Let’s stop pretending otherwise.&nb= sp; That is just part of the price we pay for high performance.  If yo= u make a bad mistake, it is much more likely to kill you, which is why it h= as such a poor safety record.  This is not the plane’s fault.&nb= sp; Rather, it is because we as pilots can’t be perfect all of the ti= me.

 

Pete=

 

=

 

= --_000_2A14E6258A8534418F5498D73CCA51EF223D799C17P3PW5EX1MB14E_--