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 6036954 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:50:00 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.40; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.77]) by imr-ma02.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 76B6D1C0001CF for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:49:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mne001a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mne001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.107.65]) by mtaomg-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id C19E9E00008A for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:49:23 -0500 (EST) References: To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Safety 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_8CFCD1882532B1B_1B80_181C21_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 10:49:23 -0500 Message-Id: <8CFCD18824281E4-1B80-77BAB@webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [12.110.229.82] Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:49:23 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1359560964; bh=Kcla2vtl6z93uiL3OC3ZhgaWmjEJrzJ2dGSJ2r5vEsc=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=FaE0Ys6n/Qdz7Mu3G/Vg37vPmN5f+6zGsI38Y0iUg8a1k9rg90WaxiQq0BIi852rF dLDMsaNlPRjJPQ6bFz385GkkzSHdg6iddpPPItglEwKDCvdo+lyeVfFVofGJOGNzrT yfIDloy1NGTonQV/cI4N0awyA+nqPdM22bFNuh+8= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:471357472:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d294d510941037c32 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CFCD1882532B1B_1B80_181C21_webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Ted, I would disagree about training. The US has become a society where everyone= gets an A and passes. Our LOBO training program does not reward the pilot= who cannot meet standards. I am sorry but if you cannot fly to PTS standar= ds you cannot get an IPC endorsement (instruement proficiency check) from u= s.=20 I have seen more than one training document signed by the instructor statin= g the pilot could not meet the instruement standards and the pilot signatur= e acknowledging that. If the pilot is willing to put in the time we can us= ually get them back up to speed but we will not compromise our standards. Jeff --the hardass. -----Original Message----- From: Ted Noel To: lml Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 7:54 am Subject: [LML] Re: Safety Ed, =20 Aspen is a one-way airport. I'm surprised you didn't end up riding t= he Town Lift.=20 =20 On the other thread, the issue is L-IV's and accidents. As a physici= an from a specialty (Anesthesiology) that dealt with high insurance rate= s, I think a couple of comments may be useful. =20 1. The unidentified esophageal intubation used to create a high-pric= ed brain injury due to lack of oxygen. In 1986, we got pulse oximetry an= d capnography in the operating room. Capnography gives a 100% accurate i= ndication of improper intubation. Oximetry gives a nearly equal indicati= on of oxygen in the blood. The combination dropped our liability insuran= ce rates by 75%, and the brain-injured patient from unidentified esophag= eal intubation is a rarity. =20 In the L-IV, the parallel would be a calibrated AOA. Just like capno= graphy and oximetry, you can ignore the AOA, but with the AOA, you have = a very good way of staying away from the stall. Properly sized and posit= ioned stall strips would tame stall behavior as well. And cuffs or VG's = promise to be even better. =20 All of these are pilot-independent ways of reducing stall/spin accid= ents. =20 2. Training. In Anesthesiology, training is supposed to be the way t= o keep skills sharp. The real answer is that constant use of those skill= s is far more important. Continuing medical education and recertificatio= n are worthless. My group had to fire a member for incompetence. He had = all the papers you could ask for, but was dangerous. You can't certify j= udgment. =20 This isn't to say training isn't necessary. Rather, it isn't suffici= ent, and I'm not sure what would be truly sufficient. Recurrent check ri= des are probably better than nothing, but accidents show they aren't suf= ficient. =20 Ted Noel =20 On 1/29/2013 12:15 AM, Ed Gray wrote: =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Grayhawk, good advice. The =E2=80=9Cunable=E2=80=9D response is= one we are reluctant to use. I was told by Aspen tower to =E2= =80=9Cgo around=E2=80=9D in a Mooney 231 about 10 feet above the= numbers with flaps and airbrakes out, because a dolt in a Jetst= ar was parked on the opposite end of the 8,000 foot runway. I o= beyed the tower and scared the crap out of my passenger clawing = for altitude over the ski lifts at the east end of the airport. = I immediately wondered why I didn=E2=80=99t say =E2=80=9Cunable= =E2=80=9D or just land. The tower guys are not there for your s= afety, just to provide traffic separation. Ed Gray Dallas 360= PS Try getting insurance without the IFR rating! =20 =20 =20 =20 ----------MB_8CFCD1882532B1B_1B80_181C21_webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Ted,
 
I would disagree about training. The US has become a society wher= e everyone gets an A and passes. Our LOBO  training program does not r= eward the pilot who cannot meet standards. I am sorry but if you cannot fly= to PTS standards you cannot get an IPC endorsement (instruement proficienc= y check) from us.
 
I have seen more than one training document signed by the instructor s= tating the pilot could not meet the instruement standards and the pilot sig= nature acknowledging  that. If the pilot is willing to put in the time= we can usually get them back up to speed but we will not compromise our st= andards.
 
Jeff --the hardass.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Noel <tednoel@cfl.rr.com>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 7:54 am
Subject: [LML] Re: Safety

=20 =20 =20 =20 Ed,

Aspen is a one-way airport. I'm surprised you didn't end up riding the Town Lift.

On the other thread, the issue is L-IV's and accidents. As a physician from a specialty (Anesthesiology) that dealt with high insurance rates, I think a couple of comments may be useful.

1. The unidentified esophageal intubation used to create a high-priced brain injury due to lack of oxygen. In 1986, we got pulse oximetry and capnography in the operating room. Capnography gives a 100% accurate indication of improper intubation. Oximetry gives a nearly equal indication of oxygen in the blood. The combination dropped our liability insurance rates by 75%, and the brain-injured patient from unidentified esophageal intubation is a rarity.

In the L-IV, the parallel would be a calibrated AOA. Just like capnography and oximetry, you can ignore the AOA, but with the AOA, you have a very good way of staying away from the stall. Properly sized and positioned stall strips would tame stall behavior as well. And cuffs or VG's promise to be even better.

All of these are pilot-independent ways of reducing stall/spin accidents.

2. Training. In Anesthesiology, training is supposed to be the way to keep skills sharp. The real answer is that constant use of those skills is far more important. Continuing medical education and recertification are worthless. My group had to fire a member for incompetence. He had all the papers you could ask for, but was dangerous. You can't certify judgment.

This isn't to say training isn't necessary. Rather, it isn't sufficient, and I'm not sure what would be truly sufficient. Recurrent check rides are probably better than nothing, but accidents show they aren't sufficient.

Ted Noel

On 1/29/2013 12:15 AM, Ed Gray wrote:
=20 =20 =20 =20
=20
  =20
Grayhawk, good advice.  The =E2=80=9Cunable=E2=80=9D response is one= we are reluctant to use.  I was told by Aspen tower to =E2=80=9Cgo around= =E2=80=9D in a Mooney 231 about 10 feet above the numbers with flaps and airbrakes out, because a dolt in a Jetstar was parked on the opposite end of the 8,000 foot runway.  I obeyed the tower and scared the crap out of my passenger clawing for altitude over the ski lifts at the east end of the airport.  I immediately wondered why I didn=E2=80=99t say =E2=80=9Cunable= =E2=80=9D or just land.  The tower guys are not there for your safety, just = to provide traffic separation.  Ed Gray  Dallas  36= 0   PS  Try getting insurance without the IFR rating!
=20
----------MB_8CFCD1882532B1B_1B80_181C21_webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com--