|
|
Kevin,
You keep eluding to removing the mystery about the Legacy open canopy
issue. I wish you would. You have chosen to refer to parts of a thoughtful
and well written document as "antidotal and erroneous" while the only
thing you offer is conjecture. At least antidotal refers to an event or
events told of, while your point of reference is from pure fantasy.
Hamid hit the bull's eye when he stated, "The facts are, that so far, we
are aware of only one person, with unknown and unique training and
experience, flying an airplane that was aerodynamically different than
every other Legacy, and under unknown conditions of weight and balance,
who was able to land with an open canopy." I might add that the remaining
are either dead, seriously hurt, or reciting some " antidotal evidence."
Someone needs to explore the envelope to put this issue in its proper
perspective.
Valin's paper adds value to our community by recognizing an issue and
addressing it on various levels. He has brought together experiences,
antidotal or not, of others and presented credible analysis backed by his
aeronautical expertise and experience.(which you do not possess) If
anything, this recognition of the open canopy issue and the proposed fixes
make our planes more valuable.
If you are of the belief that we are all dreaming, are over reactive, or
cannot fly, etc., etc., I would suggest that you get your brass on, get in
your Legacy, and prove us all wrong. Pool your experts (I assume these
people are none of the persons that have offered antidotal evidence to
date), put a test plan together, and go for it!
I doubt you will have that brass because of what has been offered by these
others so far. Go roll that Legacy- canopy open or closed. Let me know
when you need that GoPro. I could go on and on about the people I have
instructed in the past like yourself, and suggested to them that they
would be much better off getting a camper than trying to fly. Accident
waiting to happen?
David Williams
On 5/5/14, 3:08 PM, "Kevin Stallard" <kevin@arilabs.net> wrote:
Hi John,
There are two kinds of data we're talking about here. Accident
statistical data and aerodynamic aircraft performance data. I'm after
the later.
I'm looking for flight data, controllability, stability, etc when the
canopy is open. Just because the canopy opened prior to a crash doesn't
make it the fault of the canopy.
Sure it may have scared the pants off the pilot, but the question is: Is
the airplane flyable with the canopy opened? We need real, measurable
controllability data. If the canopy doesn't inhibit the airplanes
ability to fly when it is opened, then we shouldn't be blaming the
airplane. Sure warning lights and such are helpful, but if the airplane can be
shown to fly reasonably well with the canopy open don't you think that
the solution to this statistical anomaly would be to include a canopy
open event during training? Show the pilot how to turn a canopy open
event into a non-event?
That's what I want to be able to do....I think that is a more sure way to
keep me safe. Thanks
Kevin
________________________________________
From: Lancair Mailing List [lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of John
Smith [john@jjts.net.au]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 5:11 AM
To: Lancair Mailing List
Subject: [LML] Re: P-38's and Legacy Canopys
A reaction to prior post. "spending a bunch and time and money fix
ing a problem that may not exist, we really need to gather data, real
hard data."
Problem that may not exist..? Really need hard data?
Why donıt we start at the top of the tree? 3 known fatal events due
flight with an open canopy (at the time that I looked at all this a few
months ago); this equates to around 1 in 100,000 take-offs. Thatıs
appalling. Anyone think otherwise?
These events also happen to account for around 10% of Legacy related
fatals. If increasing awareness of this possibility and of simple
practical procedures and systems to reduce the risk are available, why
not do it? Iım all ears!
Iıll be honest the only way I found about what could happen with the
canopy was when I did my transition training in 2008 with Bob Jeffries in
N199L if he hadnıt told me about this, I most likely would have never
known and consequently wouldnıt have installed the dual position / latch
warning system in XTZ before I first flew the aircraft.
And then, it was the public discussion mainly on this forum that followed
Gerry Gouldıs accident that finally yielded reports (and in effect a
procedure for) of successful flight and landing with the canopy open. I
am very grateful that I and others now have the knowledge of what has
worked. We never had that information as a community before or at least
it wasnıt out there for all to benefit from. This accident triggered an
immediate upgrade of my canopy alarm from a simple warning light to
include large red flashing warnings on both EFIS screens, audible alarm,
and writing up canopy open procedures (pre-airborne, and post-airborne)
into my POH.
A few simple steps get us closer and potentially beyond what I understand
to be a minimum GA target for fatal events of 1 in 1,000,000. They are
all, along with the relative (indicative) benefits, documented in Valinıs
report. Why strive to prevent that very useful information getting out
there??
I just wish others who have not survived a canopy open event had been
able to receive Valinıs paper before those accidents occurred, and
especially Gerry Gould who was the pilot of the Legacy that crashed at
Geraldton Gerry was an experienced pilot who used his Legacy routinely
to get from ³a² to ³b² for his business in Australiaıs northwest, yet
what followed on 18 September last year started with a simple error. The
final report of this accident will be quite comprehensive and I think is
about to be released, but in meantime refer:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-201
3-158.aspx
BTW the figure of ³around 1 in 100,000² comes from some assumptions
below. I accept not "hard research quality data", but given the goal of
getting a feel for the stats on this, I felt the assumptions are probably
OK for the current purpose. My approach was to assume a pro-rata time
introduction of Legacies over a period of 10 years. In other words, based
on numbers below 35 in Yr 1, another 35 in Yr 2, and other 35 in Yr 3 and
so on. Of course thatıs not what actually happened, but to get a feel for
the risk of this event, I think thatıs good enough. Irrespective of what
a calculated risk value might be, 3 fatal events - some or all that could
well have been avoided with some more broadly available knowledge - is 3
too many.
Event = "Flight occurs with canopy unlocked and leads to a fatality"
No. recorded events 3
No. Legacy's flown 350
Years in operation 10
Flight years 1925
Avg. take-off/yr 50
Total take-off to date 96250
Frequency of canopy open fatalties 3.12E-05 REF
This is a "Reference event frequency"(REF) assuming all past events
occurred with aircraft / pilots:-
- no alarm system
- critical check lists not used
- abort procedure not acknowldged
- no predefined / rehearsed canopy open flight procedure
- no proven flight procedure "available"
Regards,
John
John N G Smith
Tel / fax: +61-8-9385-8891
Mobile: +61-409-372-975
Email: john@jjts.net.au
--
For archives and unsub
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
|
|