X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-da05.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.147] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6037787 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:39:14 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.147; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaout-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.130]) by imr-da05.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id DDC0B1C00008A for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:38:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.119] (24-107-65-42.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.65.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mtaout-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPSA id 4FD3DE0000E2; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:38:38 -0500 (EST) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-28DCF7ED-957D-45B6-93B4-41243B1B3075 Message-Id: <8597B638-FD01-468F-B341-7F6A0095B216@aol.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) From: vtailjeff@aol.com Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Accident rate for LOBO members vs non-members Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:38:40 -0600 To: Lancair Mailing List x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1359596318; bh=5FYURxu0Tk+/G6Sx5D3YOJZny9Yb7JkCtTiBkefRdZE=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=HBQpnuKXdAX8JrYExlOmp+MT8wxw6atDoxBMdFlA3f9TR0ImoNKlkDKZfysPbfvVG 2GzpyiECupzoYMqekKDy7gCXbHwe/Anqii46hM48T3vWfBzo17/mPWi2/ShLNHRSBJ XvEcvfaViDL903mxRZMFNeC9cpAY52CNsDowxb30= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 1:2:413697440:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 1 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d33825109cb1e5f75 X-AOL-IP: 24.107.65.42 --Apple-Mail-28DCF7ED-957D-45B6-93B4-41243B1B3075 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Paul, How many members in the TBM association? Jeff Sent from my iPad On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Paul Miller wrote: > 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 t= he TBM, V-tails and probably lots of other examples. With 3,000+ hours in m= y own Twin Cessna I never had a major concern with Cessna support or the air= frame and I joined that group for a year or two but it is exactly as you des= cribe. >=20 > 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 l= obby or effect change, you need clout. Clout comes from numbers and a stro= ng message and broad support from other groups. Owners will find it very e= asy to rally behind a strong safety message as LOBO is doing. A very stron= g 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 salesper= son as well. It all works when the numbers are there. There's nothing wron= g with being monied especially if a large portion comes from the vendors we s= pend money on. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Dang Peter, you made me look up my old twin, looks just a pretty as the da= y I sold it here >=20 > Paul > Legacy >=20 >=20 > On 2013-01-30, at 5:27 PM, peter williams wrote: >=20 >> 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 monie= d. >>=20 >> i belong to the "Twin Cessna" org. and besides a monthly publication, the= y have pay for it seminars. >> two days for engine and two days for airframe. great info and great learn= ing. and a great font of information. >>=20 >> the first time i spoke to them, they gave me one thought that saved me fr= om a landing gear collapse. ( there is a bellcrank hidden under the pilots f= eet that normally is never examined) >>=20 >> and they still are a small organization and a very small percentage of th= e 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, i= t is not the mature organization I spoke about. I say that because it is a s= tartup in aviation terms. You may have the beginnings and all your ducks l= ined up but a mature pilot organization in my mind (and based on my experien= ce with 5 other groups) has: >>=20 >> 1) Lots of money in the bank >> 2) Support from vendors, manufacturers, maintenance outfits ($ and tangib= les) >> 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 r= equirements. >> 6) Annual safety seminars and briefings on all the accidents and known ca= uses >> 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 techn= ology 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 worke= d for me. But, right now I see LOBO as a startup venture using Marv's serv= ices for comm. Some day you will likely have to stop being public, go inde= pendent with paid members doing the talking and paid members choosing whom t= o 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 w= ith you on a website. Hopefully, that's 90% of the fleet but until you get t= hem into your organization your message is just mixed in with all the other L= ML topics here and it really should be separate because the goal is importan= t. >>=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 vette= d and endorsed by FITS (FAA and industry) and have been active locally and n= ationally 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 o= ur newsletters would reveal that. All of our flight instructors have receive= d LOBO stan/ eval training and receive recurrent training to ensure they are= consistently delivering training the way it was intended to be given. We ha= ve a very good syllabus that has received high marks from the industry (but y= ou gotta get that horse to drink). Our newest instructor partner is located a= t RDD in Redmond and has a Redbird sim for flight training. >>> =20 >>> Training is the key to reducing accidents but unfortuntately less than 1= 0% of the population gets recurrent training. Same with other type clubs. >>> =20 >>> LOBO has entered into talks with the FAA leadership concerning mandator= y transition training for new Lancair pilots to act as PIC. This action vast= ly 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 i= s 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 curri= culum (no matter who provides the training) and challenges the group in tota= l 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 th= e fatal incidents on that airframe and as a hangar partner with an MU-2 owne= r I have some background that suggests group involvement can help achieve h= igher levels of safety. >>>=20 >>> Socata contracted early on for a sim (PanAm at that time) and gives trai= ning with each airframe. They give trainings certificates at the annual mee= tings (in exchange for charity donations to local needs). The owner group (= I was an original founder) now has matured into a full fledged organization w= ith a safety arm. The recurrent training takes into account all the latest i= ssues and accidents and helps prevent similar occurrences. Manufacturer ass= istance 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 c= an both acquire coverage and be safe. >>>=20 >>> The MU-2 program was successful, but it also had a large support from th= e 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 ha= s been really helpful for me but is spotty in curriculum and really has no v= isible tools for evaluating pilots. Flightsafety and SIMCOM banned measurin= g 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 measureme= nt for adequate training in my Legacy, for example? >>>=20 >>> A mature step would be an organization that both promotes a safety curri= culum (no matter who provides the training) and challenges the group in tota= l 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 t= hat meet those proficiency standards. Its not enough to get "recurrent trai= ning" 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 po= licy or other tangibles. There are lots of ways to motivate pilots to atte= nd but the motivation has to be more than a good friendly meeting and gather= ing because many pilots have businesses and time limitations so it must be v= alued. 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 La= ncairians. But, I recognize that people value memberships for what they pro= vide and things that are free are generally valued as such. Not my way of t= hinking 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 accide= nts with ten fatalities. One involved a LOBO member. There have been three f= atal 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 w= e 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-membe= rs. 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 expe= rimental or even better than that.=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Have we gone through the Lancair accidents to see if the PIC was a LOB= O 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 >=20 --Apple-Mail-28DCF7ED-957D-45B6-93B4-41243B1B3075 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Paul,

=
How many members in the TBM association?

Jeff<= br>
Sent from my iPad

On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Paul Mil= ler <pjdmiller@gmail.com> w= rote:

Peter: Thanks fo= r that comment.  Many groups with substance are the result of rallying b= ehind 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 o= wn Twin Cessna I never had a major concern with Cessna support or the airfra= me and I joined that group for a year or two but it is exactly as you descri= be.

What LOBO is facing is a critical problem in the flee= t (perceived or real).  A view that there is a safety issue that needs t= o 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 g= roups.   Owners will find it very easy to rally behind a strong safety m= essage as LOBO is doing.   A very strong and successful group becomes t= he airframe's biggest salesperson and that's a good side benefit.  A la= rge owner group becomes the group's best salesperson as well.  It all w= orks when the numbers are there.  There's nothing wrong with being moni= ed especially if a large portion comes from the vendors we spend money on.

If you just want a social group with a water cooler a= nd 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 <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 <= /font>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.<= /font>

the first time i spoke to them, they gave me o= ne 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



-----Origina= l 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.  = ; But, it is not the mature organization I spoke about.  I say that bec= ause it is a startup in aviation terms.   You may have the beginnings a= nd all your ducks lined up but a mature pilot organization in my mind (and b= ased on my experience with 5 other groups) has:

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

In 2001, it took us 10 years to get there with one group.  With th= e technology today, perhaps that can be done in 2-3 years.  I really li= ke the idea of Sedona and OSH and all the meetings, I could never schedule o= ne 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 sto= p being public, go independent with paid members doing the talking and paid m= embers choosing whom to listen to on your very own site.  You want memb= ers who can spend on safety, afford dues and a convention or two, proper mai= ntenance 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 se= parate because the goal is important.

Paul
Legacy




Paul,
 
It is called LOBO. We have a safety arm, a mature training program vett= ed and endorsed  by FITS (FAA and industry) and have been active l= ocally and nationally in these matters. You are correct about resources. LOB= O is run by a small group of very dedicated very effective volunteers. A qui= ck review of our newsletters would reveal that. All of our flight instructor= s have received LOBO stan/ eval training and receive recurrent training to e= nsure they are consistently delivering training the way it was intended to b= e given. We have a very good syllabus that has received high marks from the i= ndustry (but you gotta get that horse to drink). Our newest instructor partn= er 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&= nbsp;10% of the population gets recurrent training. Same with other typ= e clubs.
 
LOBO has entered into talks with the FAA  leadership concerning ma= ndatory transition training for new Lancair pilots to act as PIC. This actio= n vastly improved the MU2 community accident record. and btw not all MU2 acc= idnets were pro flown. While none of us desire more regulations th= e accident rate is hurting our fleet.
 
Your comments about value added are on target and we are looking at way= s to make that happen. I invite you to join us at Oshkosh Airventure 2013 &n= bsp;or Greenville, SC Oct 2-3 for our third annual flyin.
 
Jeff Edwards
 
President, LOBO
A mature step would be an organization that both p= romotes a safety curriculum=20 (no matter who provides the training) and challenges the group in total to r= ise=20 to a higher level of proficiency in the areas that matter.  We may or m= ay=20 not have the resources yet for that step.
-----Origina= l 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 t= he fatal incidents on that airframe and as a hangar partner with an MU-2 own= er  I have some background that suggests group involvement can help ach= ieve higher levels of safety.

Socata contracted early on for a sim (PanAm at that time) and gives tra= ining with each airframe.  They give trainings certificates at the annu= al meetings (in exchange for charity donations to local needs).   The o= wner group (I was an original founder) now has matured into a full fledged o= rganization with a safety arm.  The recurrent training takes into accou= nt all the latest issues and accidents and helps prevent similar occurrences= .  Manufacturer assistance is really needed, even if in name only. &nbs= p;The largest TBM distributor has his own training program specifically for l= ow 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 t= he original manufacturer, Mitsubishi, who had no obligation, but a moral nee= d to improve the safety of those ships.

Lancair does not likely have the capital to throw at training.   H= PAT has been really helpful for me but is spotty in curriculum and really ha= s no visible tools for evaluating pilots.  Flightsafety and SIMCOM bann= ed 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 curr= iculum (no matter who provides the training) and challenges the group in tot= al 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 "recurre= nt 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 discou= nt on the policy or other tangibles.   There are lots of ways to motiva= te pilots to attend but the motivation has to be more than a good friendly m= eeting and gathering because many pilots have businesses and time limitation= s 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 n= ow 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 o= rganizing Lancairians.  But, I recognize that people value memberships f= or what they provide and things that are free are generally valued as such. &= nbsp;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 accide= nts with ten fatalities. One involved a LOBO member. There have been three f= atal 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 w= e 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 c= ommercial aviation... do we have a break down of what the rate is of LOBO me= mbers vs. Non-members.  I would hope that by just being a LOBO member a= nd 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 memb= er.  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.apartmentspe= i.com

=20


= --Apple-Mail-28DCF7ED-957D-45B6-93B4-41243B1B3075--