X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.70] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6036101 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:19:16 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.70; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=KrosQv8Ekfui2h04ebdu7nrNnz305fEWF66zxNxj9M3HU4+ssi2v7FWmBYaN4Vzu; h=Received:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [70.20.32.152] (helo=[192.168.1.24]) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1U0OCA-0004ND-SN; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:18:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 4P AUGERING IN Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-110--1043366825 From: Colyn Case In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:18:42 -0500 Message-Id: <7F7BAAF8-AD16-43F4-B92B-A9A809177E70@earthlink.net> References: To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da94032cb7bd04255e4c443d2ae2fce45c116350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 70.20.32.152 --Apple-Mail-110--1043366825 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Pete said: "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 rates for that privilege." I accept that. Therefore I will not feel bad if we don't ever get to = airline rates. I don't, however, accept the status quo of 500X when there is obviously = something we can do about it. ....if for no other reason than innocent = people get in the right seats of these airplanes and never come back. = If a person buys a lancair they should be training to a higher level = and maintaining proficiency to a higher level. Why not shoot for getting = down to 200X as a short term goal? As for the MU-2's, when I visited their safety convention in Columbus = Ohio this spring I spoke at length with the guy who literally wrote the = training syllabus. A similar syllabus existed for years before it had = any effect because the flight schools involved were all teaching various = other things. It wasn't until the SFAR was adopted that people trained = to that syllabus. Thus mandatory training to that syllabus is what = changed everything. I think that maps to the current situation with Lancairs pretty well. = LOBO, for example, has an extensive syllabus but only a limited number = of Lancair pilots are trained to it. That's still true if you say LOBO + = HPAT combined. If you were to say that with Lancairs it's not just a matter of "enough" = training but "correct" training I would totally agree. On Jan 29, 2013, at 4:31 PM, pete@leapfrogventures.com wrote: You are comparing apples and oranges. The issue with MU-2s was that = they were being flown by professional pilots without correct training, = not without enough training. When the training was changed to stress = the unique aspects of the plane, the accident rate dropped = precipitously. =20 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 Citabrias 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 could fly all the time, but unfortunately = flying is not my day job. =20 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 rates for that privilege. =20 Pete =20 From: Colyn Case [mailto:colyncase@earthlink.net]=20 Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 11:50 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [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 accident rate to be = based on the theory of intersecting a more demanding plane with the = fallibility of normal competent pilots? =20 Here are some numbers I dug up for a presentation I did at Sedona last = year: =20 Fatal accident rates per 100,000 hours. (formatted for a powerpoint = slide): =95 Airlines - ~.01 (base line) =95 GA rate =96 1.11 (100X) =95 Experimental =96 2.33 (200X) =95 Lancair - ~5 (500X) =20 =20 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. =20 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 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. =20 =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. =20 Personally I think even GA rates are unconscionably 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 = Lancair 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. =20 =20 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. =20 =20 Colyn =20 On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:38 PM, pete@leapfrogventures.com wrote: =20 I don=92t 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 =96 = 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 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 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. =20 So, in my opinion, relative to most other planes, the Lancair is less = safe. Let=92s 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 kill you, which is why it has such a poor safety = record. This is not the plane=92s fault. Rather, it is because we as = pilots can=92t be perfect all of the time. =20 Pete =20 =20 --Apple-Mail-110--1043366825 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252

I accept that.   Therefore I will not = feel bad if we don't ever get to airline = rates.

I don't, however, =  accept the status quo of 500X when there is obviously something we = can do about it.  ....if for no other reason than innocent people = get in the right seats of these airplanes and never come back.   If = a person buys a lancair they should be training to  a higher level = and maintaining proficiency to a higher level. Why not shoot for getting = down to 200X as a short term goal?

As for the MU-2's, when I visited their = safety convention in Columbus Ohio this spring I spoke at length with = the guy who literally wrote the training syllabus.  A similar = syllabus existed for years before it had any effect because the flight = schools involved were all teaching various other things.   It = wasn't until the SFAR was adopted that people trained to that syllabus. =   Thus mandatory training to that syllabus is what changed = everything.

I think that maps = to the current situation with Lancairs pretty well.   LOBO, for = example, has an extensive syllabus but only a limited number of Lancair = pilots are trained to it. That's still true if you say LOBO + HPAT = combined.

If you were to = say that with Lancairs it's not just a matter of "enough" training but = "correct" training I would totally agree.

On Jan 29, 2013, at 4:31 PM, pete@leapfrogventures.com = wrote:

You = are comparing apples and oranges.  The issue with MU-2s was that = they were being flown by professional pilots without correct training, = not without enough training.  When the training was changed to = stress the unique aspects of the plane, the accident rate dropped = precipitously.
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 rates for that privilege.
From: Colyn Case = [mailto:colyncase@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 = 11:50 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subj= ect: Re: [LML] Re: = 4P AUGERING IN
 
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 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):
=95 Airlines - = ~.01           (base = line)
=95 GA rate =96 1.11     =       (100X)
=95 Experimental =96 2.33 (200X)
=95 Lancair - = ~5            =     (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 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 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 unconscionably 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 Lancair 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. =   
On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:38 = PM, pete@leapfrogventures.com wrote:
=
 
I don=92t 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 =96 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 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 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=92s 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 kill you, which is why it = has such a poor safety record.  This is not the plane=92s = fault.  Rather, it is because we as pilots can=92t be perfect all = of the time.