X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 08:56:40 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-gg0-f182.google.com ([209.85.161.182] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 6036682 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 08:50:24 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.161.182; envelope-from=pjdmiller@gmail.com Received: by mail-gg0-f182.google.com with SMTP id d1so247561ggn.41 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 05:49:50 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.236.165.135 with SMTP id e7mr5617711yhl.99.1359553790226; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 05:49:50 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from pjdms-mbp.cfl.rr.com ([68.202.59.203]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j13sm1110580ani.19.2013.01.30.05.49.47 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 05:49:49 -0800 (PST) From: Paul Miller Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F0285CF0-824C-4CCC-9C4C-0C1B81FAAFF5" X-Original-Message-Id: <6367517A-ACB7-445F-AA3A-E22B5E20EC9C@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Accident rate for LOBO members vs non-members X-Original-Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 08:49:46 -0500 References: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) --Apple-Mail=_F0285CF0-824C-4CCC-9C4C-0C1B81FAAFF5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I can add to that comment. As a TBM owner with knowledge of many of = the fatal incidents on that airframe and as a hangar partner with an = MU-2 owner I have some background that suggests group involvement can = help achieve higher levels of safety. Socata contracted early on for a sim (PanAm at that time) and gives = training with each airframe. They give trainings certificates at the = annual meetings (in exchange for charity donations to local needs). = The owner group (I was an original founder) now has matured into a full = fledged organization with a safety arm. The recurrent training takes = into account all the latest issues and accidents and helps prevent = similar occurrences. Manufacturer assistance is really needed, even if = in name only. The largest TBM distributor has his own training program = specifically for low time buyers so that they can both acquire coverage = and be safe. The MU-2 program was successful, but it also had a large support from = the original manufacturer, Mitsubishi, who had no obligation, but a = moral need to improve the safety of those ships. Lancair does not likely have the capital to throw at training. HPAT = has been really helpful for me but is spotty in curriculum and really = has no visible tools for evaluating pilots. Flightsafety and SIMCOM = banned measuring tools but now have come back with thresholds for = passing mostly because of the lawsuits that have followed a trainee's = accident. As a Lancair pilot, I can get affordable training but is it = what I need and what is the measurement for adequate training in my = Legacy, for example? A mature step would be an organization that both promotes a safety = curriculum (no matter who provides the training) and challenges the = group in total to rise to a higher level of proficiency in the areas = that matter. We may or may not have the resources yet for that step. Then, challenge the insurers to provide coverage and benefits for those = that meet those proficiency standards. Its not enough to get "recurrent = training" because that is a checkbox on a form only. Maybe it is an = emblem on your ship, maybe a extra million in liab coverage, maybe a = discount on the policy or other tangibles. There are lots of ways to = motivate pilots to attend but the motivation has to be more than a good = friendly meeting and gathering because many pilots have businesses and = time limitations so it must be valued. Anyone remember the FlightSafety = Pro Card? As the original TBM website founder, I note that the group evolved into = a paid organization with a private site. It generates a ton of cash now = and I believe throws a lot of it at safety being a 501c(3). I'm not = throwing any rocks at LML or LOBO whatsoever and both are a great tool = for organizing Lancairians. But, I recognize that people value = memberships for what they provide and things that are free are generally = valued as such. Not my way of thinking but that's what the numbers tell = me. Paul Legacy On 2013-01-30, at 8:05 AM, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote: > Dico, >=20 > You raise a good point. Last year there were six serious Lancair = accidents with ten fatalities. One involved a LOBO member. There have = been three fatal accidents involving members since 2008. I cannot recall = the total since then. I can give you a more complete picture later. Type = club members (Lobo, Cirrus, Bonanza, etc.) typically have an accident = "rate" that is less than half of the overall numbers because they = participate. The PIC in the latest accident was not a member and did not = attend the Sedona Lobo fly out where we had three days of training and = seminars and just good fun.=20 >=20 > Jeff >=20 > Sent from my iPad >=20 > On Jan 29, 2013, at 8:41 PM, Dico Reijers = wrote: >=20 >> If the accident rate for Lancairs is 500x that of commercial = aviation... do we have a break down of what the rate is of LOBO members = vs. Non-members. I would hope that by just being a LOBO member and = reading/learning from this group that the accident rate for us is more = in line with the 300x experimental or even better than that.=20 >>=20 >> Have we gone through the Lancair accidents to see if the PIC was a = LOBO member. It would be interesting. >>=20 >> -DIco >>=20 >>=20 >> --=20 >> Regards, >>=20 >> Dico Reijers >>=20 >> InternetWorks Ltd. >> 300 University Avenue >> Charlottetown >> PE, C1A 4M4 >>=20 >> 902-892-4671 (T) >> 888-368-9484 (F) >>=20 >> www.internetworks.ca >> www.apartmentspei.com --Apple-Mail=_F0285CF0-824C-4CCC-9C4C-0C1B81FAAFF5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii I can = add to that comment.   As a TBM owner with knowledge of many of the = fatal incidents on that airframe and as a hangar partner with an MU-2 = owner  I have some background that suggests group involvement can = help achieve higher levels of safety.

Socata = contracted early on for a sim (PanAm at that time) and gives training = with each airframe.  They give trainings certificates at the annual = meetings (in exchange for charity donations to local needs).   The = owner group (I was an original founder) now has matured into a full = fledged organization with a safety arm.  The recurrent training = takes into account all the latest issues and accidents and helps prevent = similar occurrences.  Manufacturer assistance is really needed, = even if in name only.  The largest TBM distributor has his own = training program specifically for low time buyers so that they can both = acquire coverage and be safe.

The MU-2 program = was successful, but it also had a large support from the original = manufacturer, Mitsubishi, who had no obligation, but a moral need to = improve the safety of those ships.

Lancair does = not likely have the capital to throw at training.   HPAT has been = really helpful for me but is spotty in curriculum and really has no = visible tools for evaluating pilots.  Flightsafety and SIMCOM = banned measuring tools but now have come back with thresholds for = passing mostly because of the lawsuits that have followed a trainee's = accident.  As a Lancair pilot, I can get affordable training but is = it what I need and what is the measurement for adequate training in my = Legacy, for example?

A mature step would be an = organization that both promotes a safety curriculum (no matter who = provides the training) and challenges the group in total to rise to a = higher level of proficiency in the areas that matter.  We may or = may not have the resources yet for that = step.

Then, challenge the insurers to provide = coverage and benefits for those that meet those proficiency standards. =  Its not enough to get "recurrent training" because that is a = checkbox on a form only.  Maybe it is an emblem on your ship, maybe = a extra million in liab coverage, maybe a discount on the policy or = other tangibles.   There are lots of ways to motivate pilots to = attend but the motivation has to be more than a good friendly meeting = and gathering because many pilots have businesses and time limitations = so it must be valued.  Anyone remember the FlightSafety Pro = Card?

As the original TBM website founder, I = note that the group evolved into a paid organization with a private = site.  It generates a ton of cash now and I believe throws a lot of = it at safety being a 501c(3).  I'm not throwing any rocks at LML or = LOBO whatsoever and both are a great tool for organizing Lancairians. =  But, I recognize that people value memberships for what they = provide and things that are free are generally valued as such.  Not = my way of thinking but that's what the numbers tell = me.

Paul
Legacy



On 2013-01-30, at 8:05 AM, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote:

Dico,

You raise a good = point. Last year there were six serious Lancair accidents with ten = fatalities. One involved a LOBO member. There have been three fatal = accidents involving members since 2008. I cannot recall the total since = then. I can give you a more complete picture later. Type club members = (Lobo, Cirrus, Bonanza, etc.) typically have an accident "rate" that is = less than half of the overall numbers because they participate. The PIC = in the latest accident was not a member and did not attend the Sedona = Lobo fly out where we had three days of training and seminars and just = good fun. 

Jeff

Sent from my = iPad

On Jan 29, 2013, at 8:41 PM, Dico Reijers <dico@internetworks.ca> = wrote:

If the accident = rate for Lancairs is 500x that of commercial aviation... do we have a = break down of what the rate is of LOBO members vs. Non-members.  I = would hope that by just being a LOBO member and reading/learning from = this group that the accident rate for us is more in line with the 300x = experimental or even better than that. 

Have we gone through the Lancair accidents to see if the PIC = was a LOBO member.  It would be = interesting.

-DIco


-- =
Regards,

Dico Reijers

InternetWorks Ltd.
300 University Avenue
Charlottetown
PE, C1A = 4M4

902-892-4671 (T)
888-368-9484 (F)

www.internetworks.ca
www.apartmentspei.com

= --Apple-Mail=_F0285CF0-824C-4CCC-9C4C-0C1B81FAAFF5--