X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:27:46 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma05.mx.aol.com ([64.12.100.31] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6037417 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:16:28 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.100.31; envelope-from=peterpaw@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-db04.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-db04.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.202]) by imr-ma05.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 9ED531C000171 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:15:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mma004b.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mma004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.191.141]) by mtaomg-db04.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 573A1E00008F for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:15:52 -0500 (EST) References: X-Original-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: peter williams X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CFCD3DBC5A4759_1708_10518D_webmail-m001.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 37309-STANDARD Received: from 69.204.230.119 by webmail-m001.sysops.aol.com (64.12.101.83) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:15:51 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CFCD3DBC473C59-1708-4D1D4@webmail-m001.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [69.204.230.119] X-Original-Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:15:52 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:423083648:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d33ca51097f787081 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CFCD3DBC5A4759_1708_10518D_webmail-m001.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" hi there boy do i disagree with you. paul it is possible to have a "Light" org that is still valuable and not monied. i belong to the "Twin Cessna" org. and besides a monthly publication, they = have pay for it seminars. two days for engine and two days for airframe. great info and great learnin= g. and a great font of information. the first time i spoke to them, they gave me one thought that saved me from= a landing gear collapse. ( there is a bellcrank hidden under the pilots fe= et that normally is never examined) and they still are a small organization and a very small percentage of the = twin Cessna pilots. amen peter =20 =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Paul Miller To: lml Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 1:27 pm Subject: [LML] Re: Accident rate for LOBO members vs non-members No need to continue to throw the LOBO logo at me Jeff. I get it. But, it= is not the mature organization I spoke about. I say that because it is a = startup in aviation terms. You may have the beginnings and all your ducks= lined up but a mature pilot organization in my mind (and based on my exper= ience with 5 other groups) has: 1) Lots of money in the bank 2) Support from vendors, manufacturers, maintenance outfits ($ and tangible= s) 3) A good portion of the fleet as paid members with recurrent membership 4) A dedicated meeting area 5) enough income to require a safety arm to spend the cash to meet 501c3 re= quirements. 6) Annual safety seminars and briefings on all the accidents and known caus= es 7) Lancair backing (Continental, Lyc PWC & GE secondary) 8) annual convention that draws 20% or more of the fleet, makes money and h= as major sponsors 9) Benefits to members that are real and visible and worth annual dues In 2001, it took us 10 years to get there with one group. With the technol= ogy today, perhaps that can be done in 2-3 years. I really like the idea o= f Sedona and OSH and all the meetings, I could never schedule one that work= ed for me. But, right now I see LOBO as a startup venture using Marv's se= rvices for comm. Some day you will likely have to stop being public, go i= ndependent with paid members doing the talking and paid members choosing wh= om to listen to on your very own site. You want members who can spend on s= afety, afford dues and a convention or two, proper maintenance and time to = spend with you on a website. Hopefully, that's 90% of the fleet but until = you get them into your organization your message is just mixed in with all = the other LML topics here and it really should be separate because the goal= is important. Paul Legacy On 2013-01-30, at 10:33 AM, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote: Paul, =20 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. =20 Training is the key to reducing accidents but unfortuntately less than 10% = of the population gets recurrent training. Same with other type clubs.=20 =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 =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. =20 Jeff Edwards =20 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 =20 ----------MB_8CFCD3DBC5A4759_1708_10518D_webmail-m001.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" hi th<= font size=3D"2">ere

boy do i disagree with you. paul

it is possible to have a "Light" org that is still valuabl= e and not monied.

i belong to the "Twin Cessna" org. an= d besides a monthly publication, they have pay for it seminars.
two days for engine and two days for airframe. great info and great learnin= g. and a great font of information.

the first tim= e i s= poke to them, they gave me one thought that saved me from a landing gear collapse. ( there is a bellcrank hidden under the pilot= s feet that normally is never examined)

and they still are a small organization and a very small percentage of the twin Cessna pilots.

amen

peter



-----= Original Message-----
From: Paul Miller <pjdmiller@gmail.com>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 1:27 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: Accident rate for LOBO members vs non-members

No need to continue to throw the LOBO logo at me Jeff.  I get it. &nbs= p; But, it is not the mature organization I spoke about.  I say that b= ecause it is a startup in aviation terms.   You may have the beginning= s and all your ducks lined up but a mature pilot organization in my mind (a= nd based on my experience with 5 other groups) has:

1) Lots of money in the bank
2) Support from vendors, manufacturers, maintenance outfits ($ and tan= gibles)
3) A good portion of the fleet as paid members with recurrent membersh= ip
4) A dedicated meeting area
5) enough income to require a safety arm to spend the cash to meet 501= c3 requirements.
6) Annual safety seminars and briefings on all the accidents and known= causes
7) Lancair backing (Continental, Lyc PWC & GE secondary)
8) annual convention that draws 20% or more of the fleet, makes money = and has major sponsors
9) Benefits to members that are real and visible and worth annual dues=

In 2001, it took us 10 years to get there with one group.  With t= he technology today, perhaps that can be done in 2-3 years.  I really = like the idea of Sedona and OSH and all the meetings, I could never schedul= e one that worked for me.   But, right now I see LOBO as a startup ven= ture using Marv's services for comm.   Some day you will likely have t= o stop being public, go independent with paid members doing the talking and= paid members choosing whom to listen to on your very own site.  You w= ant members who can spend on safety, afford dues and a convention or two, p= roper maintenance and time to spend with you on a website.  Hopefully,= that's 90% of the fleet but until you get them into your organization your= message is just mixed in with all the other LML topics here and it really = should be separate because the goal is important.

Paul
Legacy



On 2013-01-30, at 10:33 AM, vtail= jeff@aol.com wrote:

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 organization that b= oth 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.
-----Origin= al Message-----
From: Paul Miller <pjdmiller@gmai= l.com>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net<= /a>>
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




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

=20

----------MB_8CFCD3DBC5A4759_1708_10518D_webmail-m001.sysops.aol.com--