Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 17:12:08 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1111055@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=70.62.14.124; envelope-from=rsimon@ustek.com
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: IVP Crash
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: IVP Crash
thread-index: AcZ1vzRTBRDgXd0ySs+iJMHdbev0BQACT9cw
From: "Lancair" <lancair@USTEK.COM>

 -----Original Message-----

Posted for "Rienk Ayers" <rienk.ayers@sreyaaviation.com>:
  Again, the Lancairs are a neat plane, and though maybe not "un-safe",
they are definitely "not-safe", a reality that everyone that buys or
builds one should recognize and be comfortable with.

I own a GlaStar, the safest and easiest-flying aircraft that I have ever
flown.  Virtually spin-proof.  Fully aileron flyable in a full stall.
T/O or land in less than 500 ft.  Final approach at a very controllable
50 kt if you so choose.  And yet last year a factory pilot killed
himself in it.  Airplanes are heavier-than-air objects operating at
altitudes from which an uncontrolled decent is often fatal - so is all
flying "not safe"?. =20

Control and thus safety comes from knowing the aircraft and one's
abilities.  Two months ago I had a couple hours in the factory ES and I
considered that unsafe.  Seven more hours with a skilled ES pilot and I
have a better feel for the abilities of the plane and my own, so the
plane/pilot combination is now safer.  More experience and training
should improve the level of safety as the hours accumulate.  During
those hours the plane will not change but the pilot will, so the un-safe
or not-safe issue is correctible not in the aircraft design but in the
pilot. =20

At least, that's how I see it.

Robert M. Simon
ES-P N301ES