X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:26:49 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com ([209.85.160.172] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 6037705 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:35:56 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.160.172; envelope-from=pjdmiller@gmail.com Received: by mail-gh0-f172.google.com with SMTP id z22so418775ghb.3 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:35:20 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.236.147.174 with SMTP id t34mr7920870yhj.70.1359588920211; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:35:20 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from pjdms-mbp.cfl.rr.com ([68.202.59.203]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w2sm4942921yhh.7.2013.01.30.15.35.17 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:35:19 -0800 (PST) From: Paul Miller Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_33A374C4-8F25-49F1-86AB-A17DA315F7B0" X-Original-Message-Id: <87691181-C5C0-41FD-A972-8A9DD6EF3E0B@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 18:35:16 -0500 References: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) --Apple-Mail=_33A374C4-8F25-49F1-86AB-A17DA315F7B0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Peter: Thanks for that comment. Many groups with substance are the = result of rallying behind a cause. MU-2, Malibu engines, PT6 engine = failure in the TBM, V-tails and probably lots of other examples. With = 3,000+ hours in my own Twin Cessna I never had a major concern with = Cessna support or the airframe and I joined that group for a year or two = but it is exactly as you describe. What LOBO is facing is a critical problem in the fleet (perceived or = real). A view that there is a safety issue that needs to be addressed = across the fleet. You can't do that with a small group of owners and = if you want to lobby or effect change, you need clout. Clout comes = from numbers and a strong message and broad support from other groups. = Owners will find it very easy to rally behind a strong safety message as = LOBO is doing. A very strong and successful group becomes the = airframe's biggest salesperson and that's a good side benefit. A large = owner group becomes the group's best salesperson as well. It all works = when the numbers are there. There's nothing wrong with being monied = especially if a large portion comes from the vendors we spend money on. If you just want a social group with a water cooler and lawn chairs at = OSH then there are plenty of groups that can provide that. Dang Peter, you made me look up my old twin, looks just a pretty as the = day I sold it here Paul Legacy On 2013-01-30, at 5:27 PM, peter williams wrote: > hi there >=20 > boy do i disagree with you. paul >=20 > it is possible to have a "Light" org that is still valuable and not = monied. >=20 > 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 = learning. and a great font of information. >=20 > 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 feet that normally is never examined) >=20 > and they still are a small organization and a very small percentage of = the twin Cessna pilots. >=20 > amen >=20 > 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 >=20 > 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 experience with 5 other groups) has: >=20 > 1) Lots of money in the bank > 2) Support from vendors, manufacturers, maintenance outfits ($ and = tangibles) > 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 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 >=20 > In 2001, it took us 10 years to get there with one group. With the = 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 schedule = one that worked for me. But, right now I see LOBO as a startup venture = using Marv's services for comm. Some day you will likely have to 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 want = members who can spend on safety, 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. >=20 > Paul > Legacy >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 2013-01-30, at 10:33 AM, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote: >=20 >> Paul, >> =20 >> It is called LOBO. We have a safety arm, a mature training program = vetted 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 instructors have received LOBO stan/ eval training and = receive recurrent training to ensure they 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 industry (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 >> LOBO has entered into talks with the FAA leadership concerning = mandatory transition 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 Greenville, 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 = 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. >> -----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 >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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? >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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? >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> Paul >> Legacy >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On 2013-01-30, at 8:05 AM, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote: >>=20 >>> 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 >>=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_33A374C4-8F25-49F1-86AB-A17DA315F7B0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii here

Paul<= /div>
Legacy


On 2013-01-30, = at 5:27 PM, peter williams <peterpaw@aol.com> = wrote:

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 = learning. 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 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
= <= /font>



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. =   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 experience with 5 other groups) has:

1) Lots of money in the bank
2) Support from vendors, manufacturers, maintenance outfits ($ and = tangibles)
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 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 the 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 schedule one that worked for me.   But, right now I see = LOBO as a startup venture using Marv's services for comm.   Some = day you will likely have to 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 want members who can spend on safety, = 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,
 
It is called LOBO. We have a safety arm, a mature training program = vetted 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 instructors have received LOBO stan/ eval training and = receive recurrent training to ensure they 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 industry (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.
 
LOBO has entered into talks with the FAA  leadership = concerning mandatory transition 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.
 
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 Greenville, 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 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.
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 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

=20


= --Apple-Mail=_33A374C4-8F25-49F1-86AB-A17DA315F7B0--