Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 07:39:58 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-6651570@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=184.168.131.12; envelope-from=pete@leapfrogventures.com
From: "pete@leapfrogventures.com" <pete@leapfrogventures.com>
Subject: RE: 1992 "HOW TO KILL YOURSELF IN A HOMEBUILT"
Thread-Topic: 1992 "HOW TO KILL YOURSELF IN A HOMEBUILT"
Thread-Index: Ac7/zjLrQw19Aq8VQWGykD+Ct+FkLwALdUCg
References: <redirect-6649792@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <redirect-6649792@logan.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

I think it would benefit all of us if we stopped crowing about how safe eac=
h of our Lancairs are because we have not personally had serious accidents.=
  Lancairs are more dangerous than planes like 172's because of how unforgi=
ving they become when errantly flown outside of their envelope.  IMHO, most=
 accidents occur after a sequence of mistakes by a fallible pilot that ends=
 with departing the safe envelope.  In a 172, recovery is easier - in Lanca=
irs, not necessarily so.  Flying our high performance unforgiving airplanes=
 does take a level of diligence that is above what many pilots I know posse=
ss.  Training is critical.  But even more important is not making mistakes =
on a routine basis that can cascade into catastrophe.  We fly high performa=
nce unforgiving aircraft that are inherently dangerous relative to most oth=
er planes.  We need to constantly remind ourselves of that and treat every =
flight, no matter how benign, accordingly. =20

Pete