X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:05:42 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from col0-omc3-s7.col0.hotmail.com ([65.55.34.145] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with ESMTP id 6648462 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 09:47:40 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.34.145; envelope-from=peterpawaviation@hotmail.com Received: from COL129-W74 ([65.55.34.136]) by col0-omc3-s7.col0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 21 Dec 2013 06:47:06 -0800 X-TMN: [L1otfdS6S/u7TC5Trrq729Cy9jprD4Fo] X-Originating-Email: [peterpawaviation@hotmail.com] X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: peterpawaviation@hotmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_cb7cb669-7c6f-42fd-af30-e8496aba14e5_" From: PETER WILLIAMS X-Original-To: "lml@lancaironline.net" Subject: 1992 "HOW TO KILL YOURSELF IN A HOMEBUILT" X-Original-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 09:47:06 -0500 Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Dec 2013 14:47:06.0250 (UTC) FILETIME=[84B8B6A0:01CEFE5B] --_cb7cb669-7c6f-42fd-af30-e8496aba14e5_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable HI THERE I FOUND THIS ARTICLE PRESCIENT=3B=20 this was written before there was a large Lancair population=3B and yet t= he information equally applies to our airplanes by Alfred Scott =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= This article appeared in the March 1992 issue of=0A= the Falco Builders Letter. =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Whenever there's an accident in an airplane=2C there's a natural=0A= tendency in all of us to dismiss the mistakes that others have=0A= made as something we would never do. We sagely recount the unfortunate=0A= pilot's error-he ran out of gas... tried to take off with... tried=0A= to do a roll-all things that somebody else did. And if it's in=0A= another type of airplane=2C then we sneer at that=2C too. =0A= =0A= But there's a harsh reality we should all face up to=2C with=0A= so many high-performance homebuilts now flying=2C there's a pattern=0A= of accidents that's undeniably there=2C and any designer=2C kit supplier=0A= or pilot who tries to paint this problem as a 'Brand-X' problem-you=0A= know=2C that other design-is simply over-exercising his arrogance. =0A= =0A= So let's take a look at the problem=2C see what lessons can be=0A= learned=2C and ask how all of us can make a difference. =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= In the case of the Falco=2C we've had three fatal accidents out=0A= of the first thirty or so Sequoia Falcos to fly. In two of these=2C=0A= the pilot was on literally his second flight in the plane. One=0A= took off with essentially no fuel in the tanks and then attempted=0A= to turn back to the field when the engine stopped. The other appears=0A= to have attempted aerobatics. In the third accident=2C the pilot=0A= was on his first instrument flight and ended up low on fuel=2C shooting=0A= a back-course approach from the right seat=2C on a rainy night that=0A= was right down to the minimums. They were obviously quite scared=0A= and ran out of fuel right over the field=2C tried a sharp turn to=0A= the runway=2C stalled and crashed. =0A= =0A= The Smythe Sidewinder has lost more than 30% of its fleet to=0A= stall-spin accidents=2C yet the airplane has a perfectly normal=0A= configuration and with no obvious flaws. But it was the Glasair=0A= III that finally got everyone's attention. With about 38 flying=2C=0A= during one six-month period six airplanes were totaled. There's=0A= simply no way to ignore such things. =0A= =0A= What got me started on this was a conversation with Dave Noland=0A= of The Aviation Consumer. We were talking about the accident=0A= rate among high-performance kitplanes=2C and Dave mentioned the=0A= experience of the Grumman American Yankee. Some years ago=2C he=0A= had done a story on the plane=2C which had a terrible accident=0A= rate-the worst of any production single by a country mile. =0A= =0A= And when they looked at the statistics=2C one thing stood out:=0A= almost without exception=2C the accidents were occuring to pilots=0A= who had very little time in the Yankee. Total time in all airplanes=0A= made very little difference. It didn't make any difference if=0A= you had 100 hours or 5=2C000 hours in other planes-what mattered=0A= was whether you had only a little time in the Yankee. (By 'Yankee'=2C=0A= I mean all of that family of airplanes=2C from the original stubby-winged= =0A= Bede design to the LoPresti-cleaned-up 180-hp Tiger.) =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= The American Yankee Association did something about it=2C and=0A= the results are astonishing. About three or four years ago=2C they=0A= started a pilot familiarization program. There are about 20 to=0A= 30 check pilots=2C who must be CFIs=2C scattered around the country=0A= who take a pilot through a familiarization program. The curriculum=0A= is standardized and focuses on the peculiarities of the Yankee-the=0A= castering nosewheel=2C the sensitivity in pitch and roll=2C the need=0A= to be 'on airspeed' on approach (particularly with the early models)=2C=0A= porpoising on landing=2C etc.-but there is no required number of=0A= hours for the program. It is up to the check pilot to say when=0A= the pilot is comfortable with the airplane. =0A= =0A= Complete this familiarization program=2C and you will qualify=0A= for a 10% discount on your insurance. That's nice=2C but the real=0A= payoff is in the accident rate=2C which has gone to essentially=0A= nil since the program began. =0A= =0A= Avemco's vice-president of underwriting=2C Jim Nelson=2C confirmed=0A= that this is the same syndrome that they found with the Glasair=0A= III. Many of the airplanes were professionally built and then=0A= test-flown by the owner who found himself at the stick of a very=0A= high performance aircraft. =0A= =0A= The Glasair III is a very-high-powered=2C high-wing-loading airplane.=0A= It was like jumping into a P-51 without proper training. Lose=0A= an engine=2C and you come down at 2600 fpm. =0A= =0A= And worse yet=2C in the opinion of many experts=2C there was a=0A= lot of bad advice floating around on how to fly the plane. Pilots=0A= were being told to fly steep approaches which caused landing accidents.=0A= You fly the plane like a turbine corporate twin=2C say the experts=2C=0A= with a normal approach angle and carrying a bit of power right=0A= down to the pavement. =0A= =0A= Avemco also became worried about the quality of the construction.=0A= Stoddard-Hamilton told The Aviation Consumer that one recently=0A= totalled Glasair was deemed unrepairable simply because the airplane=0A= had been too ineptly constructed to make restoration viable. There=0A= are concerns about contaminents in the fuel tanks=2C overall construction= =0A= quality=2C and of course everyone is concerned about modifications. =0A= =0A= In order to provide insurance=2C it was necessary to find a way=0A= to ensure that the aircraft was airworthy=2C repairable=2C and that=0A= the pilot was trained to fly it. The Sport Aircraft Manufacturers=0A= Association=2C Stoddard-Hamilton=2C and Avemco put together a program=0A= to make insurance available under certain conditions. =0A= =0A= First=2C they require an initial inspection for overall quality.=0A= They want to know from the beginning it is built right and can=0A= be repaired if crashed-you can bet that Avemco has insured its=0A= last not-worth-repairing Glasair. This inspection is in addition=0A= to the FAA inspection=2C and it typically takes 30 to 40 hours of=0A= labor. =0A= =0A= Second=2C they wanted to be sure that the pilot could fly the=0A= aircraft. Working with PIC (Professional Instrument Courses)=2C=0A= they established an initial and recurrent training program. Pilots=0A= are required to take annual recurrency training. The training=0A= covers slow flight=2C stalls=2C problems with gear extensions=2C etc. =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Do all this and Avemco will insure you. Don't comply=2C and you=0A= can buy your insurance elsewhere=2C thank you very much. =0A= =0A= This approach is definitely the coming thing. The initial inspection=0A= will vary with the aircraft=2C and will probably only be required=0A= with certain aircraft where the insurance company has concerns=0A= about the ability to repair the airplane and to find someone who=0A= can do the work. The conventional methods of construction-steel=0A= tubing=2C fabric-covering=2C wood=2C and aluminum-are all things they've=0A= dealt with for years. =0A= =0A= And the requirement for a formal training program will initially=0A= apply only to the Glasair III=2C but owners of other high performance=2C=0A= high powered airplanes-Lancair IV=2C Venture=2C SX-300=2C etc.-can count=0A= on it. =0A= =0A= But just because an airplane like the Falco has a moderate=0A= wing loading and average approach speed is no reason to relax.=0A= The Yankee was considered 'real sporty' in its day=2C but the Falco=0A= has much lighter controls=2C a faster rate of roll and greater sensitivity= =0A= in the controls=2C even though it may be easier to land. =0A= =0A= Avemco would like to see a training facility for every high=0A= performance airplane=2C and you really can't argue with the benefits=0A= of a such a program. Insurance-enforced training already exists=0A= for a number of complex twin-engine aircraft=2C and we're going=0A= to see more of this sort of thing with high-performance homebuilts. =0A= =0A= I love the idea=2C myself. Insurance companies make decisions=0A= based on their experience in the field. Some years ago when I=0A= owned an old Victorian apartment building=2C we found it was the=0A= insurance companies who really laid down the law with us on safety=0A= issues-not municipal building inspectors with their building codes.=0A= Insurance companies were free to lay down a new list of requirements=0A= each year=2C they were always tough on us=2C and I always found them=0A= to have good reasons. (In fact=2C I hold the opinion that if the=0A= FAA got completely out of the certification business and left=0A= it all to the insurance companies=2C we'd have safer airplanes.) =0A= =0A= Overall the safety record of homebuilt aircraft is not greatly=0A= different from production aircraft. There are slightly fewer fatalities=0A= per aircraft (which is slightly deceptive because homebuilts have=0A= fewer seats on the average) and slightly more accidents. The mix=0A= is different: lots of low-altitude buzzing accidents=2C not many=0A= weather-related mishaps=2C and aerobatics are thought to be a factor=0A= contributing to the slightly higher rate among homebuilts. =0A= =0A= But here's the predictable part: approach the transition to=0A= the Falco with the same rather cavalier attitude that's been practiced=0A= in the past=2C and some of you reading this will die as a result. =0A= =0A= If that's not appealing to you=2C then here's what we can do.=0A= Let's start by recognizing that it's smart to get checked out=0A= in the Falco by an experienced pilot. Builders who have finished=0A= their Falcos have been quite good about giving people rides=2C but=0A= let's recognize that it's not just a matter of being nice-it's=0A= saving lives. =0A= =0A= I think it's time we put together a familiarization guide for=0A= the Falco=2C a syllabus of all of the things that are different=0A= about the Falco=2C and a formalized curriculum to introduce pilots=0A= to the Falco. I'd love to have suggestions and contributions from=0A= any of you. = --_cb7cb669-7c6f-42fd-af30-e8496aba14e5_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
HI THERE


I FOUND THIS ARTICLE PRESCIENT=3B

 =3B this was written before there was a large Lancair populati= on=3B and yet the information equally applies to our airplanes


by Alfred Scott
=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A=
= =0A=

This article app= eared in the March 1992 issue of=0A= the Falco Builders Letter.

=0A= =0A= Whenever there's an accident in an airplane=2C there's a natural=0A= tendency in all of us to dismiss the mistakes that others have=0A= made as something we would never do. We sagely recount the unfortunate=0A= pilot's error-he ran out of gas... tried to take off with... tried=0A= to do a roll-all things that somebody else did. And if it's in=0A= another type of airplane=2C then we sneer at that=2C too.
=0A= =0A= But there's a harsh reality we should all face up to=2C with=0A= so many high-performance homebuilts now flying=2C there's a pattern=0A= of accidents that's undeniably there=2C and any designer=2C kit supplier=0A= or pilot who tries to paint this problem as a 'Brand-X' problem-you=0A= know=2C that other design-is simply over-exercising his arrogance.
=0A= =0A= So let's take a look at the problem=2C see what lessons can be=0A= learned=2C and ask how all of us can make a difference.
=0A= =0A=

= =0A= =0A= In the case of the Falco=2C we've had three fatal accidents out=0A= of the first thirty or so Sequoia Falcos to fly. In two of these=2C=0A= the pilot was on literally his second flight in the plane. One=0A= took off with essentially no fuel in the tanks and then attempted=0A= to turn back to the field when the engine stopped. The other appears=0A= to have attempted aerobatics. In the third accident=2C the pilot=0A= was on his first instrument flight and ended up low on fuel=2C shooting=0A= a back-course approach from the right seat=2C on a rainy night that=0A= was right down to the minimums. They were obviously quite scared=0A= and ran out of fuel right over the field=2C tried a sharp turn to=0A= the runway=2C stalled and crashed.
=0A= =0A= The Smythe Sidewinder has lost more than 30% of its fleet to=0A= stall-spin accidents=2C yet the airplane has a perfectly normal=0A= configuration and with no obvious flaws. But it was the Glasair=0A= III that finally got everyone's attention. With about 38 flying=2C=0A= during one six-month period six airplanes were totaled. There's=0A= simply no way to ignore such things.
=0A= =0A= What got me started on this was a conversation with Dave Noland=0A= of The Aviation Consumer. We were talking about the accident=0A= rate among high-performance kitplanes=2C and Dave mentioned the=0A= experience of the Grumman American Yankee. Some years ago=2C he=0A= had done a story on the plane=2C which had a terrible accident=0A= rate-the worst of any production single by a country mile.
=0A= =0A= And when they looked at the statistics=2C one thing stood out:=0A= almost without exception=2C the accidents were occuring to pilots=0A= who had very little time in the Yankee. Total time in all airplanes=0A= made very little difference. It didn't make any difference if=0A= you had 100 hours or 5=2C000 hours in other planes-what mattered=0A= was whether you had only a little time in the Yankee. (By 'Yankee'=2C=0A= I mean all of that family of airplanes=2C from the original stubby-winged= =0A= Bede design to the LoPresti-cleaned-up 180-hp Tiger.)
=0A= =0A=

= =0A= =0A= The American Yankee Association did something about it=2C and=0A= the results are astonishing. About three or four years ago=2C they=0A= started a pilot familiarization program. There are about 20 to=0A= 30 check pilots=2C who must be CFIs=2C scattered around the country=0A= who take a pilot through a familiarization program. The curriculum=0A= is standardized and focuses on the peculiarities of the Yankee-the=0A= castering nosewheel=2C the sensitivity in pitch and roll=2C the need=0A= to be 'on airspeed' on approach (particularly with the early models)=2C=0A= porpoising on landing=2C etc.-but there is no required number of=0A= hours for the program. It is up to the check pilot to say when=0A= the pilot is comfortable with the airplane.
=0A= =0A= Complete this familiarization program=2C and you will qualify=0A= for a 10% discount on your insurance. That's nice=2C but the real=0A= payoff is in the accident rate=2C which has gone to essentially=0A= nil since the program began.
=0A= =0A= Avemco's vice-president of underwriting=2C Jim Nelson=2C confirmed=0A= that this is the same syndrome that they found with the Glasair=0A= III. Many of the airplanes were professionally built and then=0A= test-flown by the owner who found himself at the stick of a very=0A= high performance aircraft.
=0A= =0A= The Glasair III is a very-high-powered=2C high-wing-loading airplane.=0A= It was like jumping into a P-51 without proper training. Lose=0A= an engine=2C and you come down at 2600 fpm.
=0A= =0A= And worse yet=2C in the opinion of many experts=2C there was a=0A= lot of bad advice floating around on how to fly the plane. Pilots=0A= were being told to fly steep approaches which caused landing accidents.=0A= You fly the plane like a turbine corporate twin=2C say the experts=2C=0A= with a normal approach angle and carrying a bit of power right=0A= down to the pavement.
=0A= =0A= Avemco also became worried about the quality of the construction.=0A= Stoddard-Hamilton told The Aviation Consumer that one recently=0A= totalled Glasair was deemed unrepairable simply because the airplane=0A= had been too ineptly constructed to make restoration viable. There=0A= are concerns about contaminents in the fuel tanks=2C overall construction= =0A= quality=2C and of course everyone is concerned about modifications.
=0A= =0A= In order to provide insurance=2C it was necessary to find a way=0A= to ensure that the aircraft was airworthy=2C repairable=2C and that=0A= the pilot was trained to fly it. The Sport Aircraft Manufacturers=0A= Association=2C Stoddard-Hamilton=2C and Avemco put together a program=0A= to make insurance available under certain conditions.
=0A= =0A= First=2C they require an initial inspection for overall quality.=0A= They want to know from the beginning it is built right and can=0A= be repaired if crashed-you can bet that Avemco has insured its=0A= last not-worth-repairing Glasair. This inspection is in addition=0A= to the FAA inspection=2C and it typically takes 30 to 40 hours of=0A= labor.
=0A= =0A= Second=2C they wanted to be sure that the pilot could fly the=0A= aircraft. Working with PIC (Professional Instrument Courses)=2C=0A= they established an initial and recurrent training program. Pilots=0A= are required to take annual recurrency training. The training=0A= covers slow flight=2C stalls=2C problems with gear extensions=2C etc.
= =0A= =0A=

= =0A= =0A= Do all this and Avemco will insure you. Don't comply=2C and you=0A= can buy your insurance elsewhere=2C thank you very much.
=0A= =0A= This approach is definitely the coming thing. The initial inspection=0A= will vary with the aircraft=2C and will probably only be required=0A= with certain aircraft where the insurance company has concerns=0A= about the ability to repair the airplane and to find someone who=0A= can do the work. The conventional methods of construction-steel=0A= tubing=2C fabric-covering=2C wood=2C and aluminum-are all things they've=0A= dealt with for years.
=0A= =0A= And the requirement for a formal training program will initially=0A= apply only to the Glasair III=2C but owners of other high performance=2C=0A= high powered airplanes-Lancair IV=2C Venture=2C SX-300=2C etc.-can count=0A= on it.
=0A= =0A= But just because an airplane like the Falco has a moderate=0A= wing loading and average approach speed is no reason to relax.=0A= The Yankee was considered 'real sporty' in its day=2C but the Falco=0A= has much lighter controls=2C a faster rate of roll and greater sensitivity= =0A= in the controls=2C even though it may be easier to land.
=0A= =0A= Avemco would like to see a training facility for every high=0A= performance airplane=2C and you really can't argue with the benefits=0A= of a such a program. Insurance-enforced training already exists=0A= for a number of complex twin-engine aircraft=2C and we're going=0A= to see more of this sort of thing with high-performance homebuilts.
=0A= =0A= I love the idea=2C myself. Insurance companies make decisions=0A= based on their experience in the field. Some years ago when I=0A= owned an old Victorian apartment building=2C we found it was the=0A= insurance companies who really laid down the law with us on safety=0A= issues-not municipal building inspectors with their building codes.=0A= Insurance companies were free to lay down a new list of requirements=0A= each year=2C they were always tough on us=2C and I always found them=0A= to have good reasons. (In fact=2C I hold the opinion that if the=0A= FAA got completely out of the certification business and left=0A= it all to the insurance companies=2C we'd have safer airplanes.)
=0A= =0A= Overall the safety record of homebuilt aircraft is not greatly=0A= different from production aircraft. There are slightly fewer fatalities=0A= per aircraft (which is slightly deceptive because homebuilts have=0A= fewer seats on the average) and slightly more accidents. The mix=0A= is different: lots of low-altitude buzzing accidents=2C not many=0A= weather-related mishaps=2C and aerobatics are thought to be a factor=0A= contributing to the slightly higher rate among homebuilts.
=0A= =0A= But here's the predictable part: approach the transition to=0A= the Falco with the same rather cavalier attitude that's been practiced=0A= in the past=2C and some of you reading this will die as a result.
=0A= =0A= If that's not appealing to you=2C then here's what we can do.=0A= Let's start by recognizing that it's smart to get checked out=0A= in the Falco by an experienced pilot. Builders who have finished=0A= their Falcos have been quite good about giving people rides=2C but=0A= let's recognize that it's not just a matter of being nice-it's=0A= saving lives.
=0A= =0A= I think it's time we put together a familiarization guide for=0A= the Falco=2C a syllabus of all of the things that are different=0A= about the Falco=2C and a formalized curriculum to introduce pilots=0A= to the Falco. I'd love to have suggestions and contributions from=0A= any of you.
= --_cb7cb669-7c6f-42fd-af30-e8496aba14e5_--