X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-da04.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.146] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6036928 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:34:15 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.146; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-ma02.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-ma02.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.9]) by imr-da04.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 57CA01C00009D for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:33:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mne001a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mne001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.107.65]) by mtaomg-ma02.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 26092E00008A for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:33:41 -0500 (EST) References: To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Accident rate for LOBO members vs non-members 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_8CFCD1650D3676F_1B80_18159A_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); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:33:41 -0500 Message-Id: <8CFCD1650C7808A-1B80-779FF@webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [12.110.229.82] Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:33:41 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1359560021; bh=iFaU/YkeJyiRiBldo53IkUZ43A6UXH9Otbkt1B6bEaQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=acninhwuq+T0T9yAfA+Ig/S8OIGK8aJlDNPQPfsU8vWXnpCPDYcF3E5jcL7YbSZSU T4Ey/2H+JPQvE/YsBcqcvhUlmrcHzqG0XUrPeq9KvOKBr2s1Wxm5AQyPyuFse4r9XN RxNVc53H6Punkp+FDdvNHAvWxLtFa6vGWfYtHrpo= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:432432608:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d290951093d55239d This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CFCD1650D3676F_1B80_18159A_webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Paul, It is called LOBO. We have a safety arm, a mature training program vetted a= nd endorsed by FITS (FAA and industry) and have been active locally and na= tionally in these matters. You are correct about resources. LOBO is run by = a small group of very dedicated very effective volunteers. A quick review o= f our newsletters would reveal that. All of our flight instructors have rec= eived LOBO stan/ eval training and receive recurrent training to ensure the= y are consistently delivering training the way it was intended to be given.= We have a very good syllabus that has received high marks from the industr= y (but you gotta get that horse to drink). Our newest instructor partner is= located at RDD in Redmond and has a Redbird sim for flight training. Training is the key to reducing accidents but unfortuntately less than 10% = of the population gets recurrent training. Same with other type clubs.=20 LOBO has entered into talks with the FAA leadership concerning mandatory t= ransition training for new Lancair pilots to act as PIC. This action vastly= improved the MU2 community accident record. and btw not all MU2 accidnets = were pro flown. While none of us desire more regulations the accident rate = is hurting our fleet.=20 Your comments about value added are on target and we are looking at ways to= make that happen. I invite you to join us at Oshkosh Airventure 2013 or G= reenville, SC Oct 2-3 for our third annual flyin. Jeff Edwards President, LOBO A mature step would be an organization that both promotes a safety curricul= um (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. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Miller To: lml Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 7:57 am Subject: [LML] Re: Accident rate for LOBO members vs non-members I can add to that comment. As a TBM owner with knowledge of many of the f= atal 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 hi= gher levels of safety. Socata contracted early on for a sim (PanAm at that time) and gives trainin= g with each airframe. They give trainings certificates at the annual meeti= ngs (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 late= st issues and accidents and helps prevent similar occurrences. Manufacture= r assistance is really needed, even if in name only. The largest TBM distr= ibutor has his own training program specifically for low time buyers so tha= t they can both acquire coverage and be safe. The MU-2 program was successful, but it also had a large support from the o= riginal manufacturer, Mitsubishi, who had no obligation, but a moral need t= o improve the safety of those ships. Lancair does not likely have the capital to throw at training. HPAT has b= een really helpful for me but is spotty in curriculum and really has no vis= ible 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 measur= ement for adequate training in my Legacy, for example? A mature step would be an organization that both promotes a safety curricul= um (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 tha= t meet those proficiency standards. Its not enough to get "recurrent train= ing" because that is a checkbox on a form only. Maybe it is an emblem on y= our ship, maybe a extra million in liab coverage, maybe a discount on the p= olicy or other tangibles. There are lots of ways to motivate pilots to at= tend but the motivation has to be more than a good friendly meeting and gat= hering 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 p= aid 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 an= y 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 fata= l accidents involving members since 2008. I cannot recall the total since t= hen. 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 lates= t accident was not a member and did not attend the Sedona Lobo fly out wher= e we had three days of training and seminars and just good fun.=20 Jeff Sent from my iPad On Jan 29, 2013, at 8:41 PM, Dico Reijers 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 th= is group that the accident rate for us is more in line with the 300x experi= mental or even better than that.=20 Have we gone through the Lancair accidents to see if the PIC was a LOBO mem= ber. It would be interesting. -DIco --=20 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 =20 ----------MB_8CFCD1650D3676F_1B80_18159A_webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Paul,
 
It is called LOBO. We have a safety arm, a mature training program vet= ted and endorsed  by FITS (FAA and industry) and have been active= locally and nationally in these matters. You are correct about resources. = LOBO is run by a small group of very dedicated very effective volunteers. A= quick review of our newsletters would reveal that. All of our flight instr= uctors have received LOBO stan/ eval training and receive recurrent trainin= g to ensure they are consistently delivering training the way it was intend= ed to be given. We have a very good syllabus that has received high marks f= rom the industry (but you gotta get that horse to drink). Our newest instru= ctor partner is located at RDD in Redmond and has a Redbird sim for flight = training.
 
Training is the key to reducing accidents but unfortuntately less than=  10% of the population gets recurrent training. Same with other t= ype clubs.
 
LOBO has entered into talks with the FAA  leadership concerning m= andatory transition training for new Lancair pilots to act as PIC. This act= ion vastly improved the MU2 community accident record. and btw not all MU2 = accidnets were pro flown. While none of us desire more regulation= s the accident rate is hurting our fleet.
 
Your comments about value added are on target and we are looking at wa= ys to make that happen. I invite you to join us at Oshkosh Airventure 2013 =  or Greenville, SC Oct 2-3 for our third annual flyin.
 
Jeff Edwards
 
President, LOBO
A mature step would be an organiz= ation that both promotes a safety curriculum=20 (no matter who provides the training) and challenges the group in total to = rise=20 to a higher level of proficiency in the areas that matter.  We may or = may=20 not have the resources yet for that step.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Miller <pjdmiller@gmail.com>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 7:57 am
Subject: [LML] Re: Accident rate for LOBO members vs non-members

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 o= wner  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 tr= aining with each airframe.  They give trainings certificates at the an= nual meetings (in exchange for charity donations to local needs).   Th= e owner group (I was an original founder) now has matured into a full fledg= ed organization with a safety arm.  The recurrent training takes into = account all the latest issues and accidents and helps prevent similar occur= rences.  Manufacturer assistance is really needed, even if in name onl= y.  The largest TBM distributor has his own training program specifica= lly 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 n= eed 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 b= anned measuring tools but now have come back with thresholds for passing mo= stly 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 an= d what is the measurement for adequate training in my Legacy, for example?<= /div>

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

Then, challenge the insurers to provide coverage and benefits for thos= e that meet those proficiency standards.  Its not enough to get "recur= rent 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 di= scount on the policy or other tangibles.   There are lots of ways to m= otivate pilots to attend but the motivation has to be more than a good frie= ndly meeting and gathering because many pilots have businesses and time lim= itations so it must be valued.  Anyone remember the FlightSafety Pro C= ard?

As the original TBM website founder, I note that the group evolved int= o 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 member= ships for what they provide and things that are free are generally valued a= s such.  Not my way of thinking but that's what the numbers tell me.

Paul
Legacy



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

Dico,

You raise a good point. Last year there were six serious Lancair accid= ents with ten fatalities. One involved a LOBO member. There have been three= fatal accidents involving members since 2008. I cannot recall the total si= nce 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. <= /div>

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 memb= er and reading/learning from this group that the accident rate for us is mo= re 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 mem= ber.  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.internetwork= s.ca
www.apartmentsp= ei.com

 ----------MB_8CFCD1650D3676F_1B80_18159A_webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com--