X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:20:51 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-ve0-f170.google.com ([209.85.128.170] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 6037810 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:01:43 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.128.170; envelope-from=toddlong1@gmail.com Received: by mail-ve0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 14so1017113vea.29 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:01:07 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.52.178.105 with SMTP id cx9mr5939064vdc.31.1359597667108; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:01:07 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [10.3.87.102] (mobile-198-228-193-115.mycingular.net. [198.228.193.115]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g5sm3184940vez.6.2013.01.30.18.01.04 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:01:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Accident rate for LOBO members vs non-members References: From: Todd Long Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-42033784-BFA2-4D1C-8A41-134865DEC786 X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B176) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-Id: <4B0E94DC-6AEE-4D14-A2F2-471C873DFC2C@gmail.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:01:59 -0600 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-42033784-BFA2-4D1C-8A41-134865DEC786 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The reluctance by some to regular and ongoing training baffles me. When I pi= cked up my "preflown" IV-P I met a lobo instructor there and did training on= the way home. I spent 3 days with him and still feel I have a lot to learn.= Could I have picked it up and made it home safely? Absolutely. Did I do the= training just for insurance reasons? No. Im sure some will disagree, but he= re it is: if you feel you are too good and safe already to not need training= and practice in this aircraft you have no business flying it with passenger= s. Check the ego at the hanger door. This airplane needs to be flown by a we= ll trained pilot in a professional manner. I applauded Jeff for his efforts t= o start an organization dedicated to bettering the safety record of lancairs= . I think the lancairs can be flown by regular private pilots with appropria= te training and an appropriate attitude. Training is not a substitute for ex= perience. But without some training you might not live long enough to get th= e experience. Just because the airplane might be capable of something doesn'= t mean the pilot is.=20 BTW, I spend almost 15 days a year in recurrent simulator training. And stil= l think I can benefit from one on one with a lancair instructor every year Todd Long Capt CE-750 (citation X) NetJets Sent from my iPad On Jan 30, 2013, at 19:41, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote: > Scott, >=20 > What Lancair model do you fly? >=20 > Jeff >=20 > Sent from my iPad >=20 > On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:25 PM, Scott E Keighan w= rote: >=20 >> George, >> I respect your position with respect to the LOBO but I disagree that beca= use I choose not to be a member I am not >> making a commitment to being a better pilot. I am a member of the LML amo= unt numerous other organizations. You have no idea whom I am, what I have do= ne or what I am doing. I will not get into it here on this forum. Lets just s= ay that I am a professional within the aviation industry ongoing for over 30= years. I have given numerous talks to various organizations with respect to= my profession and interests. >>=20 >> I will not get into whom I think is a safer or a better pilot or how to a= chieve that goal. Although I do have my own thoughts on that. >>=20 >> Scott Keighan >>=20 >> P.S. I fly IFR and VFR as required in both airplanes and helicopters. I a= lso do not have any issues getting insurance or training. >>=20 >> To: lml@lancaironline.net >> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:30:58 -0500 >> From: gw5@me.com >> Subject: [LML] Re: Accident rate for LOBO members vs non-members >>=20 >> Scott, >>=20 >> It should be obvious that LOBO is not going to get rich off of $40/yr per= member. This rate should be viewed as a great rate for a couple of reasons:= >>=20 >> 1. The tremendous amount of information with regard to building the vario= us models of Lancairs, the depth of aviation experience in aerodynamics and p= ilotage of our Lancairs, and the knowledge base of regulations from those wh= o served in regulatory bodies.=20 >>=20 >> 2. All of the above plus the commitment of each of us to become better pi= lots whether through proficiency training or increasing our ratings/knowledg= e base enables such a body as LOBO to better represent us as whole whether i= ts for insurance rates or for potential FAA governance.=20 >>=20 >> In my opinion, for the cost of 7 gallons or a half hour of flying per yea= r we are getting a great deal.=20 >>=20 >> In sum; you won't be a better pilot because you joined LOBO but because y= ou made a comittment to be a better pilot by learning from others and taking= the step to go beyond the status quo.=20 >>=20 >> I can't tell you how many pilots that I have talked to that just go bombi= ng through MOAs and other high density traffic areas squawking 1200 because t= hey can without talking to anyone. Just because you can doesn't mean it's sm= arter.=20 >>=20 >> It's fun to fly VFR but having the ability and knowledge to fly IFR in yo= ur back pocket benefits you and everyone in your plane and the airspace arou= nd you.=20 >>=20 >> George >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Sent from my iPhone >>=20 >> On Jan 30, 2013, at 8:27, marv@lancair.net wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> Posted for Scott E Keighan : >>=20 >> So let me get this right. If I pay you $40 to join the LOBO I will be a=20= >> better pilot then a non-LOBO member, cool. >> How exactly does that work?=20 >> Other then someone getting $40 richer, I don't see it. Is this like a pyr= amid=20 >> scam? >>=20 >> Don't insult non members and get a life. As a matter of fact. If the LOBO= is=20 >> so great, why are you even on the LML? >> I think the LOBO members should go to their own blog. I am sure they have= =20 >> one. >> Scott keighan >> 905 262 5997 >>=20 >> [Whoa... lighten up. Since the LML had been operating successfully for a= number of years prior to the founding of LOBO and the LML would likely alre= ady be in touch with most folks who would be interested in joining and parti= cipating in LOBO, an agreement was forged which allowed LOBO to use the LML a= s its communications arm. It was a logical decision which would benefit bot= h entities. Both organizations exist for the benefit of the Lancair communi= ty, especially where safety is involved. As for cost... if $40/year is too m= uch to pay to an organization dedicated to your safety and actively working t= o help getting the Lancair fleet insured at better rates then don't join. A= lso, don't participate in their discussions or learn anything from their sha= red knowledge... at least that way you'll get what you paid for. But don't t= hrow stones at folks who are trying to help... that doesn't get us anywhere.= ] >> =20 >>=20 >>=20 >> From: colyncase@earthlink.net >> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:31:05 -0500 >> To: lml@lancaironline.net >> Subject: [LML] Re: Accident rate for LOBO members vs non-members >>=20 >> Dico, >> That's a good point. That's one reason we would like to get as many Lan= cair=20 >> pilots on the LML and into LOBO as possible. It's largely a word of mo= uth=20 >> process to get let people know about these two resources. Getting the wo= rd=20 >> out to everyone is one of the "things we can do as a community" to improv= e the=20 >> situation. =20 >> LOBO membership is $40 at www.lancairowners.com. >> (Marv would love contributions to keep the LML site going too!) >> Colyn >> On Jan 29, 2013, at 9:41 PM, Dico Reijers wrote:If the accident rate for=20= >> Lancairs is 500x that of commercial aviation... do we have a break down o= f=20 >> what the rate is of LOBO members vs. Non-members. I would hope that by j= ust=20 >> being a LOBO member and reading/learning from this group that the acciden= t=20 >> rate for us is more in line with the 300x experimental or even better tha= n=20 >> that.=20 >>=20 >> Have we gone through the Lancair accidents to see if the PIC was a LOBO=20= >> member. It would be interesting. >> -DIco >>=20 >> --=20 >> Regards, >>=20 >> Dico Reijers >>=20 >> InternetWorks Ltd. >>=20 >> 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 >>=20 >> -- >>=20 >> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.ht= ml --Apple-Mail-42033784-BFA2-4D1C-8A41-134865DEC786 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
The reluctance by some to r= egular and ongoing training baffles me. When I picked up my "preflown" IV-P I= met a lobo instructor there and did training on the way home. I spent 3 day= s with him and still feel I have a lot to learn. Could I have picked it up a= nd made it home safely? Absolutely. Did I do the training just for insurance= reasons? No. Im sure some will disagree, but here it is: if you feel you ar= e too good and safe already to not need training and practice in this aircra= ft you have no business flying it with passengers. Check the ego at the hang= er door. This airplane needs to be flown by a well trained pilot in a profes= sional manner. I applauded Jeff for his efforts to start an organization ded= icated to bettering the safety record of lancairs. I think the lancairs can b= e flown by regular private pilots with appropriate training and an appropria= te attitude. Training is not a substitute for experience. But without some t= raining you might not live long enough to get the experience. Just because t= he airplane might be capable of something doesn't mean the pilot is. 

BTW, I spend almost 15 days a year in recurrent simu= lator training. And still think I can benefit from one on one with a lancair= instructor every year

Todd Long
Capt CE-= 750 (citation X)
NetJets

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 30, 2013, at 19:41, vtailje= ff@aol.com wrote:

Scott,

What Lancair model do you fly?

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 30, 201= 3, at 6:25 PM, Scott E Keighan <scottekeighan@sympatico.ca> wrote:

George,
I respect your position with respect to the LOBO= but I disagree that because I choose not to be a member I am not
making a= commitment to being a better pilot. I am a member of the LML amount numerou= s other organizations. You have no idea whom I am, what I have done or what I= am doing. I will not get into it here on this forum. Lets just say that I a= m a professional within the aviation industry ongoing for over 30 years. I h= ave given numerous talks to various organizations with respect to my profess= ion and interests.

I will not get into whom I think is a safer or a b= etter pilot or how to achieve that goal.  Although I do have my ow= n thoughts on that.

Scott Keighan

P.S. I fly IFR and VFR as re= quired in both airplanes and helicopters. I also do not have any issues gett= ing insurance or training.

To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:30:58 -0500From: gw5@me.com
Subject: [LML] Re: Ac= cident rate for LOBO members vs non-members

Scott,
It should be obvious that LOBO is not going to get rich off of $= 40/yr per member. This rate should be viewed as a great rate for a couple of= reasons:

1. The tremendous amount of information w= ith regard to building the various models of Lancairs, the depth of aviation= experience in aerodynamics and pilotage of our Lancairs, and the knowledge b= ase of regulations from those who served in regulatory bodies. 

2. All of the above plus the commitment of each of us to b= ecome better pilots whether through proficiency training or increasing our r= atings/knowledge base enables such a body as LOBO to better represent us as w= hole whether its for insurance rates or for potential FAA governance. <= /div>

In my opinion, for the cost of 7 gallons or a half h= our of flying per year we are getting a great deal. 

In sum; you won't be a better pilot because you joined LOBO but becau= se you made a comittment to be a better pilot by learning from others and ta= king the step to go beyond the status quo. 

I c= an't tell you how many pilots that I have talked to that just go bombing thr= ough MOAs and other high density traffic areas squawking 1200 because they c= an without talking to anyone. Just because you can doesn't mean it's smarter= . 

It's fun to fly VFR but having the ability a= nd knowledge to fly IFR in your back pocket benefits you and everyone in you= r plane and the airspace around you. 

George







Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 30, 2013, at 8:27, <= a href=3D"mailto:marv@lancair.net">marv@lancair.net wrote:

=

Posted for Scott E Keighan <scottekeighan@sympatico.ca= >:

So let me get this right. If I pay you $40 to join the LOB= O I will be a
better pilot then a non-LOBO member, cool.
How exactly does that work?
Other then someone gettin= g $40 richer, I don't see it. Is this like a pyramid
scam?

Don't insult non members and get a life. As a matter of fact. If the LOBO is=
so great, why are you even on the LML?
I think the LOBO members should go to their own blog. I am sure they have
one.
Scott keighan<= br> 905 262 5997

[Whoa... lighten up.  Since the LML had been operating successfully for a number of years prior to the founding of LOBO a= nd the LML would likely already be in touch with most folks who would be interested in joining and participating in LOBO, an agreement was forged whi= ch allowed LOBO to use the LML as its communications arm.  It was a logical decision which would benefit both entities.  Both organizations= exist for the benefit of the Lancair community, especially where safety is involved.  As for cost... if $40/year is too much to pay to an organ= ization dedicated to your safety and actively working to help getting  the Lancair fleet insured at better rates then don't join. Also, don't= participate in their discussions or learn anything from their shared knowledge... at least that way you'll get what you paid for. But don't throw= stones at folks who are trying to help... that doesn't get us anywhere.  <marv>    ]
 


From: colyncase@earthlink.net
D= ate: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:31:05 -0500
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Accident rate for= LOBO members vs non-members

Dico,
That's a good point.   That's on= e reason we would like to get as many Lancair
pilots on the LML and into LOBO as possible.    It's largely a word of mouth <= br>process to get let people know about these two resources.  Getting the word
out to everyone is one of the "th= ings we can do as a community" to improve the
situation.  
LOBO membership is $40 at www.lancairowners.com.
(Marv would love contributions t= o keep the LML site going too!)
Colyn
On Jan 29, 2013, at 9:41 PM, Dico Reijers wrote:If the accident rate for
Lancairs i= s 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 e= ven better than
that.

Have we gone through the Lancair accidents to see if the PIC was a LOBO
member.  It would be in= teresting.
-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.ap= artmentspei.com


   =   

--

For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/Lis=
t.html
= --Apple-Mail-42033784-BFA2-4D1C-8A41-134865DEC786--