X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 11:57:10 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from omr-d05.mx.aol.com ([205.188.109.202] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with ESMTPS id 6580336 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:47:43 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.109.202; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaout-db06.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-db06.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.198]) by omr-d05.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 874D3700406FF for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:47:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.129.58.28] (mobile-166-147-081-233.mycingular.net [166.147.81.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mtaout-db06.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPSA id 693E9E000100; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:47:00 -0500 (EST) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5A556D44-C039-4594-931A-B26D2D5FD1FC X-Original-Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) From: vtailjeff@aol.com Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Legacy Canopy Problem X-Original-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 07:46:47 -0800 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d33c6527bb5f34cba X-AOL-IP: 166.147.81.233 --Apple-Mail-5A556D44-C039-4594-931A-B26D2D5FD1FC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hypothesis 1: Attitude towards flying, risk, life.... Hypothesis 2: Many of the accident pilots are "non participants" in our avia= tion community. They don't belong to any aviation group, whether it's EAA, L= OBO, AOPA etc. They don't participate in FAA wings seminars, or even hang ar= ound the airport cafe.=20 Hence they do not get the constant safety messages. How do you reach the "unreachable"? This is true in other activities as well. Many of these guys lack the "meta c= ognitive" awareness of their own abilities. They overrate their skill, knowl= edge and experience and get in trouble when they find themselves in over the= ir head.=20 We need to find the "strays" and get them into the "herd". =20 Jeff=20 Ps... I asked yesterday if anyone knew the 235 accident pilot that crashed l= ast week. So far no one has answered. See Hypothesis 2 above.=20 Sent from my iPad On Nov 7, 2013, at 6:10 AM, "Bill Bradburry" wrot= e: > Jeff, > =20 > Other than size, what are the differences in the two populations? > =20 > Bill > =20 > From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Jef= f Edwards > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 8:03 AM > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Subject: [LML] Re: Legacy Canopy Problem > =20 > The safety minded individual usually makes the changes required to reduce r= isk; sees the benefit of risk reduction; etc. they, as a population are not t= he problem. In the last five years 48 serious Lancair accidents. Three invol= ved LOBO members; 45 involved non members. Why the differences? There are di= stinct differences in these two populations.=20 > =20 > Does anyone know the pilot of the recent fatal Lancair accident in Oregon.= I will bet not. > =20 > Jeff >=20 > =20 >=20 > On Nov 6, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Todd Long wrote: >=20 >> Jeff a question for you about the 10% you think would implement the syste= m. I'm guessing that that 10% is probably mostly made up of the safety consc= ious minded pilot with good discipline.? Or is it the experimenter/Tinker th= at never flies anyways? >>=20 >> Typing and grammar errors courtesy of Siri and the iPhone. >>=20 >> On Nov 6, 2013, at 11:10, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote: >>=20 >>> Not to undermine or negate the great posts about recommended aircraft im= provements I would also make the following comments.=20 >>> =20 >>> Addressing the pilot situation only:=20 >>> =20 >>> As a long time CFI and former long time FAA designated pilot examiner my= observations from flying with hundreds of different pilots is as follows: >>> =20 >>> The overall GA pilot population does not routinely use checklists. Rathe= r, they get in the aircraft and start up and go. Items get missed all of the= time. Some are critical like doors and canopies some are not critical. Ther= e is a standard out there for using checklists. it is contained in many docu= ments. One could not pass an FAA check ride without using the checklists yet= it is routine in my industry to observe pilots not utilize them at all.=20 >>> =20 >>> Why do pilots not use checklists? here are a few thoughts or excuses. >>> =20 >>> 1. It takes time and energy. >>> 2. They have done it many times before. >>> 3. What could go wrong? >>> 4. My flight instructor never taught me... >>> 5. The other pilots do it this way. >>> =20 >>> The question from a piloting perspective is...."how do you regard checkl= ists?"=20 >>> =20 >>> If you do not use good habits like many pro crews have been trained to a= nd use, then you are at a higher risk like the Legacys mentioned here. >>> =20 >>> Even if there was a solution to put in an additional latch or safeguard w= ould you install it? Would you use it? Would you add the additional step to a= checklist you may not use now? >>> =20 >>> There is no perfect solution here. I support adding a safeguard, but pri= or research on these safety hardware issues shows it will not be implemented= by more than about 10% of the population.=20 >>> =20 >>> Aviation safety has always been a belt and suspenders approach. Reexamin= e your habits, make the necessary changes, and install important safety impr= ovements. >>> =20 >>> Jeff >>> LOBO=20 >>>=20 >>> Sent from my iPad >>>=20 >>> On Nov 6, 2013, at 7:29 AM, Mike's Gmail wrote: >>>=20 >>>> I beg to differ about the door issue on the ES. I got to look over an E= S that returned after the door opened in flight. 60% of the R/H H stab was m= issing the leading edge. The empennage was cracked 2/3 around the tail and t= he roof of the cabin was badly damaged. =20 >>>> =20 >>>> Cargo doors on the 4p and ES's have had their day too.. =20 >>>> =20 >>>> Mike Larkin >>>>=20 >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>=20 >>>> On Nov 6, 2013, at 5:32 AM, Gary Casey wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> I've read lots of comments on this, but most seem to be like putting o= ne's head in the sand. If something is likely to kill, something should be d= one. At least three fatalities is far, far too many to write off as just a f= ew pilots who couldn't handle a "tricky" situation. And to think that there= must be some sort of build defficiency doesn't make sense either - the impo= rtant features of the aircraft are almost identical - pin locations and cano= py shapes. And this is not the way to find out that you "just weren't meant= to be a pilot." And to say, "just remember to latch it" just doesn't cut i= t. A secondary latch copied from millions of car's hood latches should do t= he job. As for "so easy it's not worth discussing" I've yet to read hundred= s of comments from those that have had it happen. Hoping that Darwin's theo= ry has already weeded out the "bad" pilots is just plain unrealistic. I kno= w, believing that you are better than those others has a degree of satisfact= ion associated with it, but does it make sense? Something needs to be done -= I'm really surprised the NTSB hasn't gotten into the act. Sooner or later t= hey will, unless the owners do something first. No, I'm not directly affect= ed, as I drive an ES - which, by the way, has it's own door-opening issues, b= ut not proven to be in the same realm. >>>>> Gary Casey >>>>> =20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> From: Mark Sletten >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> I strongly suspect the reason we don't hear about incidents where an o= pen >>>>> canopy didn't interfere with controllability is because it's not reall= y an >>>>> event worth discussing, plus there's an element of embarrassment. >>>>>=20 >>>>> "Hey guys, I forgot to close my canopy before take-off and had to come= back >>>>> to land before I could finish my trip." >>>>>=20 >>>>> Don't really hear too many stories about people forgetting to turn on t= he >>>>> transponder either. >>>>>=20 >>>>> "Hey guys, I forgot turn on the transponder before takeoff. ATC remind= ed >>>>> me, so I turned it on." >>>>>=20 >>>>> --Mark --Apple-Mail-5A556D44-C039-4594-931A-B26D2D5FD1FC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Hypothesis 1: Attitude tow= ards flying, risk, life....

Hypothesis 2: Many of t= he accident pilots are "non participants" in our aviation community. They do= n't belong to any aviation group, whether it's EAA, LOBO, AOPA etc. They don= 't participate in FAA wings seminars, or even hang around the airport cafe.&= nbsp;

Hence they do not get the constant safety mes= sages.

How do you reach the "unreachable"?

This is true in other activities as well. Many of these guy= s lack the "meta cognitive" awareness of their own abilities. They overrate t= heir skill, knowledge and experience and get in trouble when they find thems= elves in over their head. 

We need to find the= "strays" and get them into the "herd".  

Jeff=  

Ps... I asked yesterday if anyone knew the 2= 35 accident pilot that crashed last week. So far no one has answered. See Hy= pothesis 2 above. 

Sent from my iPad

On Nov= 7, 2013, at 6:10 AM, "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry@bellsouth.net> wrote:

<= blockquote type=3D"cite">
=

Jeff,

 

Other than size, what are the differenc= es in the two populations?

 

Bill

 

From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lanc= aironline.net] On Behalf Of J= eff Edwards
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2= 013 8:03 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Legacy Can= opy Problem

 

The safety minded individual usually makes the changes required to reduce risk; sees the benefit of risk reduction; etc. they, as a population a= re not the problem. In the last five years 48 serious Lancair accidents. Three involved LOBO members; 45 involved non members. Why the differences? There a= re distinct differences in these two populations. 

 

Does anyone know the pilot of the recent fatal Lancair accident in <= st1:state w:st=3D"on">Oregon.= I will bet not.

 

Jeff

 


On Nov 6, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Todd Long <toddlong1@gmail.com> wrote:

Jeff a question for you about the 10% you think would implement the system. I'm guessing that that 10% is probably mostly made up of the safety conscious minded pilot with good discipline.? Or is it the experimenter/Tink= er that never flies anyways?

Typing and grammar errors courtesy of Siri and the iPhone.=


On Nov 6, 2013, at 11:10, vtailjeff@aol= .com wrote:

Not to undermine or negate the great posts about recommended aircraf= t improvements I would also make the following comments. 

 

Addressing the pilot situation only: <= /p>

 

As a long time CFI and former long time FAA designated pilot examine= r my observations from flying with hundreds of different pilots is as follows:=

 

The overall GA pilot population does not routinely use checklists. Rather, they get in the aircraft and start up and go. Items get missed all o= f the time. Some are critical like doors and canopies some are not critical. There is a standard out there for using checklists. it is contained in many documents. One could not pass an FAA check ride without using the checklists= yet it is routine in my industry to observe pilots not utilize them at all. 

 

Why do pilots not use checklists? here are a few thoughts or excuses= .

 

1. It takes time and energy.

2. They have done it many times before.

=

3. What could go wrong?

4. My flight instructor never taught me...<= /p>

5. The other pilots do it this way.

 

The question from a piloting perspective is...."how do you regard checklists?" 

 

If you do not use good habits like many pro crews have been trained t= o and use, then you are at a higher risk like the Legacys mentioned here.=

 

Even if there was a solution to put in an additional latch or safegu= ard would you install it? Would you use it? Would you add the additional step to= a checklist you may not use now?

 

There is no perfect solution here. I support adding a safeguard, but= prior research on these safety hardware issues shows it will not be implemen= ted by more than about 10% of the population. 

=

 

Aviation safety has always been a belt and suspenders approach. Reexamine your habits, make the necessary changes, and install important saf= ety improvements.

 

Jeff

LOBO 

Sent from my iPad


On Nov 6, 2013, at 7:29 AM, Mike's Gmail <legacyl2k@gmail.com> wrote:

I beg to differ about the door issue on the ES.  I got to look over an ES that returned after the door opened in flight.  60% of the R= /H H stab was missing the leading edge.  The empennage was cracked 2/3 aro= und the tail and the roof of the cabin was badly damaged.    

 

Cargo doors on the 4p and ES's have had their day too..  <= /o:p>

 

Mike Larkin

Sent from my iPhone


On Nov 6, 2013, at 5:32 AM, Gary Casey <casey.gary@yahoo.com> wrote:

I've read lots of comments on this, but most seem to be like putting one's head i= n the sand.  If something is likely to kill, something should be done.  At least three fatalities is far, far too many to write off as just a f= ew pilots who couldn't handle a "tricky" situation.  And to think that there must be some sort of build defficiency doesn't make sense either -= the important features of the aircraft are almost identical - pin locations a= nd canopy shapes.  And this is not the way to find out that you "just weren't meant to be a pilot."  And to say, "just remember to latch it" just doesn't cut it.  A secondary latch copied from millions of car's hood latches should do the job.  As for "so easy it's= not worth discussing" I've yet to read hundreds of comments from those that have had it happen.  Hoping that Darwin's theory has already weeded out the= "bad" pilots is just plain unrealistic.  I know, believing that you are better than those others has a degree of satisfaction associated wit= h it, but does it make sense?  Something needs to be done - I'm really surpri= sed the NTSB hasn't gotten into the act.  Sooner or later they will, unless= the owners do something first.  No, I'm not directly affected, as I dri= ve an ES - which, by the way, has it's own door-opening issues, but not proven t= o be in the same realm.

Gary Casey

<= span style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black"> = ;


From: Mark Sletten <<= /font>mwslette= n@gmail.com>


I strongly suspect the reason we don't hear about incidents where an open canopy didn't interfere with controllability is because it's not really an event worth discussing, plus there's an element of embarrassment.

"Hey guys, I forgot to close my canopy before take-off and had to come back
to land before I could finish my trip."

Don't really hear too many stories about people forgetting to turn on the transponder either.

"Hey guys, I forgot turn on the transponder before takeoff. ATC reminded
= me, so I turned it on."

--Mark

= --Apple-Mail-5A556D44-C039-4594-931A-B26D2D5FD1FC--