X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-mb02.mx.aol.com ([64.12.207.163] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6038677 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:26:15 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.207.163; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-mb05.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mb05.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.76]) by imr-mb02.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id F020C380001F9 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:25:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mne001a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mne001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.107.65]) by mtaomg-mb05.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id A437AE000086 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:25:39 -0500 (EST) References: 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: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CFCDDE5C207DBB_1B80_1A50ED_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); Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:25:39 -0500 Message-Id: <8CFCDDE5C0FD414-1B80-81F7D@webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [12.110.229.82] Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:25:39 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1359645939; bh=AS6CiJ4xBimLVdDiVoR4NkihPmG3OuAuheLMv5Gepeg=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=NtQQQ2W57mR/EO3Yla/cAH+YyYsrXW1TGiXv7WZyE7iPRWcp9AoF5GbdEyJcCxZCu yy5BgYwlsb+U4E/Q9NtiX+AScVZyEjs5iunopGmP5gUdBWoG/u2EUDQz9owe0Rqtwp XE8pLuUtvbZWHEuq+FYI6DYQPdY0UVAByi0ciiQw= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:466661344:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d294c510a8cf32cf9 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CFCDDE5C207DBB_1B80_1A50ED_webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Bill, I ran across a very young instructor last year giving primary training to a= student pilot (doctor) in a IVP for his private pilot certificate -- they = did stall training no less. The instructor was very young and (imho) inexpe= rienced. You are paying for the experience of the instructor. His experienc= e will keep you alive while you train. In this case the cfi had no idea wha= t the IVP was like -- had zero hours in it.=20 Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Todd Long To: lml Sent: Thu, Jan 31, 2013 6:40 am Subject: [LML] Re: Accident rate for LOBO members vs non-members Type training is always more expensive. Why does it cost $100 to see your G= P doctor compared to $1000 for a quick consult from a heart surgeon? I feel= my time is significantly more valuable when I instruct compared to a newly= minted 300 hr TT instructor.=20 Typing and grammar errors courtesy of Siri and the iPhone. On Jan 31, 2013, at 0:47, "Bill Bradburry" wrote= : Why is flight training by a HIPATinstructor so much more expensive than fli= ght training by otherinstructors? I think that is a larger factor in the = =E2=80=9Creluctance bysome=E2=80=9D to get training in Lancairs than any ot= her reason with the possibleexception of availability of an HIPAT instructo= r. =20 Bill B =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Todd= Long Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 20139:21 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Accident ratefor LOBO members vs non-members =20 The reluctance by some to regular and ongoing training baffles me. WhenI pi= cked up my "preflown" IV-P I met a lobo instructor there and didtraining on= the way home. I spent 3 days with him and still feel I have a lotto learn.= Could I have picked it up and made it home safely? Absolutely. Did Ido the= training just for insurance reasons? No. Im sure some will disagree, buthe= re it is: if you feel you are too good and safe already to not need trainin= gand practice in this aircraft you have no business flying it with passenge= rs.Check the ego at the hanger door. This airplane needs to be flown by a w= elltrained pilot in a professional manner. I applauded Jeff for his efforts= tostart an organization dedicated to bettering the safety record of lancai= rs. I thinkthe lancairs can be flown by regular private pilots with appropr= iate trainingand an appropriate attitude. Training is not a substitute for = experience. Butwithout some training you might not live long enough to get = the experience.Just because the airplane might be capable of something does= n't mean the pilotis.=20 =20 BTW, I spend almost 15 days a year in recurrent simulator training. Andstil= l think I can benefit from one on one with a lancair instructor every year =20 Todd Long Capt CE-750 (citation X) NetJets Sent from my iPad On Jan 30, 2013, at 19:41, vtailjeff@aol.comwrote: Scott, =20 What Lancair model do you fly? =20 Jeff Sent from my iPad On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:25 PM, Scott E Keighan wr= ote: George, I respect your position with respect to the LOBO but I disagree that becaus= e Ichoose not to be a member I am not making a commitment to being a better pilot. I am a member of the LML amoun= tnumerous other organizations. You have no idea whom I am, what I have done= orwhat I am doing. I will not get into it here on this forum. Lets just sa= y thatI am a professional within the aviation industry ongoing for over 30 = years. Ihave given numerous talks to various organizations with respect to = myprofession and interests. I will not get into whom I think is a safer or a better pilot or how to ach= ievethat goal. Although I do have my own thoughts on that. Scott Keighan P.S. I fly IFR and VFR as required in both airplanes and helicopters. I als= o donot have any issues getting insurance or training. 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 Scott, =20 It should be obvious that LOBO is not going to get rich off of $40/yrper me= mber. 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 thevarious = models of Lancairs, the depth of aviation experience in aerodynamicsand pil= otage of our Lancairs, and the knowledge base of regulations from thosewho = served in regulatory bodies.=20 =20 2. All of the above plus the commitment of each of us to become betterpilot= s whether through proficiency training or increasing our ratings/knowledgeb= ase enables such a body as LOBO to better represent us as whole whether its= 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 peryear w= e are getting a great deal.=20 =20 In sum; you won't be a better pilot because you joined LOBO but becauseyou = made a comittment to be a better pilot by learning from others and takingth= e step to go beyond the status quo.=20 =20 I can't tell you how many pilots that I have talked to that just gobombing = through MOAs and other high density traffic areas squawking 1200because the= y can without talking to anyone. Just because you can doesn't meanit's smar= ter.=20 =20 It's fun to fly VFR but having the ability and knowledge to fly IFR inyour = back pocket benefits you and everyone in your plane and the airspacearound = you.=20 =20 George =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Sent from my iPhone On Jan 30, 2013, at 8:27, marv@lancair.netwrote: Posted for Scott E Keighan : 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 pyram= id=20 scam? Don't insult non members and get a life. As a matter of fact. If the LOBO i= s=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 [Whoa... lighten up. Since the LML had been operating successfully for anu= mber of years prior to the founding of LOBO and the LML would likely alread= ybe in touch with most folks who would be interested in joining andparticip= ating in LOBO, an agreement was forged which allowed LOBO to use theLML as = its communications arm. It was a logical decision which would benefitboth = entities. Both organizations exist for the benefit of the Lancaircommunity= , especially where safety is involved. As for cost... if$40/year is too mu= ch to pay to an organization dedicated to your safety andactively working t= o help getting the Lancair fleet insured at betterrates then don't join. A= lso, don't participate in their discussions or learnanything from their sha= red knowledge... at least that way you'll get what youpaid for. But don't t= hrow stones at folks who are trying to help... thatdoesn't get us anywhere.= ] =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 Dico, That's a good point. That's one reason we would like to get as manyLancai= r=20 pilots on the LML and into LOBO as possible. It'slargely a word of mouth= =20 process to get let people know about these two resources. Gettingthe word= =20 out to everyone is one of the "things we can do as a community" toimprove t= he=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 of= =20 what the rate is of LOBO members vs. Non-members. I would hope thatby just= =20 being a LOBO member and reading/learning from this group that the accident= =20 rate for us is more in line with the 300x experimental or even better than= =20 that.=20 Have we gone through the Lancair accidents to see if the PIC was a LOBO=20 member. 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 -- =20 For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html =20 ----------MB_8CFCDDE5C207DBB_1B80_1A50ED_webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Bill,
 
I ran across a very young instructor last year giving primar= y training to a student pilot (doctor) in a IVP for his private pilot certi= ficate -- they did stall training no less. The instructor was ver= y young and (imho) inexperienced. You are paying for the experience of the = instructor. His experience will keep you alive while you train. In this cas= e the cfi had no idea what the IVP was like -- had zero hours in it.
 
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Long <toddlong1@gmail.com>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thu, Jan 31, 2013 6:40 am
Subject: [LML] Re: Accident rate for LOBO members vs non-members

Type training is always more expensive. Why does it cost $100 to see y= our GP doctor compared to $1000 for a quick consult from a heart surgeon? I= feel my time is significantly more valuable when I instruct compared to a = newly minted 300 hr TT instructor. 

Typing and grammar errors courtesy of Siri and the iPhone.

On Jan 31, 2013, at 0:47, "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Why is fligh= t training by a HIPAT instructor so much more expensive than flight training by other instructors?  I think that is a larger factor in the =E2=80=9Creluctan= ce by some=E2=80=9D to get training in Lancairs than any other reason with the po= ssible exception of availability of an HIPAT instructor.
 
Bill B
 
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Todd Long
Sent: Wednesday, January 3= 0, 2013 9:21 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Acciden= t rate for LOBO members vs non-members
 
The reluctance by some to regular and ongoing trai= ning 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 days with him and still feel I have a l= ot to learn. Could I have picked it up and made it home safely? Absolutely. Di= d I do the training just for insurance reasons? No. Im sure some will disagree,= but here it is: if you feel you are too good and safe already to not need train= ing 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 well trained pilot in a professional manner. I applauded Jeff for his efforts to start an organization dedicated to bettering the safety record of lancairs.= I think the lancairs can be flown by regular private pilots with appropriate traini= ng and an appropriate attitude. Training is not a substitute for experience. B= ut without some training you might not live long enough to get the experience. Just because the airplane might be capable of something doesn't mean the pi= lot is. 
 
BTW, I spend almost 15 days a year in recurrent si= mulator training. And still think I can benefit from one on one with a lancair instructor every y= ear
 
Todd Long
Capt CE-750 (citation X)
NetJets

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 30, 2013, at 19:41, vtailjeff@a= ol.com wrote:
Scott,
 
What Lancair model do you fly?
 
Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 30, 2013, 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 becaus= e 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 amoun= t numerous 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 t= hat 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.

I will not get into whom I think is a safer or a better pilot or how to ach= ieve that goal.  Although I do have my own thoughts on that.

Scott Keighan

P.S. I fly IFR and VFR as required in both airplanes and helicopters. I als= o do not have any issues getting insurance or training.
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
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 reas= ons:
 
1. The tremendous amount of information with regar= d to building the various models of Lancairs, the depth of aviation experience in aerodynamic= s and pilotage of our Lancairs, and the knowledge base of regulations from th= ose who served in regulatory bodies. 
 
2. All of the above plus the commitment of each of= us to become better pilots whether through proficiency training or increasing our ratings/knowl= edge base enables such a body as LOBO to better represent us as whole whether it= s for insurance rates or for potential FAA governance. 
 
In my opinion, for the cost of 7 gallons or a half= hour of flying per year we are getting a great deal. 
 
In sum; you won't be a better pilot because you jo= ined LOBO but because you made a comittment to be a better pilot by learning from others and taki= ng the step to go beyond the status quo. 
 
I can't tell you how many pilots that I have talke= d to that just go bombing through MOAs and other high density traffic areas squawking 1200 because they can without talking to anyone. Just because you can doesn't me= an it's smarter. 
 
It's fun to fly VFR but having the ability and kno= wledge to fly IFR in your back pocket benefits you and everyone in your plane and the airspace around you. 
 
George
 
 
 
 
 


Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 30, 2013, at 8:27, 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 LOBO I will be a better pilot then a non-LOBO member, cool.
How exactly does that work?
Other then someone getting $40 richer, I don't see it. Is this like a pyram= id
scam?

Don't insult non members and get a life. As a matter of fact. If the LOBO i= s
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 <= br> one.
Scott keighan
905 262 5997

[Whoa... lighten up.  Since the LML had been operating successfully fo= r 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 participating in LOBO, an agreement was forged which allowed LOBO to use th= e LML as its communications arm.  It was a logical decision which would = benefit both entities.  Both organizations exist for the benefit of the Lancai= r community, especially where safety is involved.  As for cost... if $40/year is too much to pay to an organization 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 lear= n anything from their shared knowledge... at least that way you'll get what y= ou 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
Date: 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 one 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
process to get let people know about these two resources.  Gettin= g the word
out to everyone is one of the "things we can do as a community" to improve the
situation.  
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 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 t= hat 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.apartmentspe= i.com


     
 
--
 
For archives and unsub <=
a href=3D"http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html" target=3D"_=
blank">http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
----------MB_8CFCDDE5C207DBB_1B80_1A50ED_webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com--