|
Message
I am intrigued to see the responses to my
earlier post about the safety of the Lancairs.
In no way do I mean to offend anyone, or
besmirch the memory of anyone's friend and fellow pilot. Nor do I intend to
demean Lancair - one of the most popular and successful family of
experimental aircraft. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of
flattery, and the Envoy is a direct tribute to both the Lancair and the
TBM700.
However, I will respond first to Jeff's
comments about the "fairness" of my post, and Matt's assertion of
commercial bias. I do not dispute that the vast majority of incidents/accidents
are pilot induced... I am, however, asserting that many are exasperated by
control and stability deficiencies of the airplane.
I have already posted in the past that
I am part of developing the Envoy, beside which the email address I
use for posting on the LML (of the six I have, for various businesses)
shows my commercial association - from which I am obviously not trying to hide.
And Mr. Wasti's judgments that I am too dishonest to say so, and too stupid to
figure out I'd get caught? Really, this is getting childish.
I stated that I have no current involvement
with the Phoenix, which has nothing to do with the Envoy - why would I mention
the one when I was referring to the other? Beside the Envoy, I have commercial
interests in other ventures, including aviation. Frankly, I saw no need to
disclose this - again.
I flew up to Skapoose this morning to meet
Chuck at Composites Unlimited, to discuss the Envoy and other projects that we
are both interested in. I went with the developers of the Phoenix - which I
think is an excellent concept. I stated that I am not involved in that project
(though I would like to be), hoping to defuse any concerns of bias. If I had
compared the Envoy, I would obviously have stated my involvement... I really am
not that stupid... I have become successful by being fair and honest, regardless
of what some rather judgmental people may say. I don't mind if people say I'm
biased (I am) and that I don't know what I'm talking about (though I hope I do),
but it does bother me when people besmirch my integrity. I may be misinformed,
opinionated, obstinate, ignorant, and brash, but I strive to be
honest.
To return to the point, my involvement with
the Envoy does not automatically establish a bias or a hidden agenda. I
have flown both a Lancair and a Columbia, and have owned many planes (from
a C150 to a KA200, and many in between). Frankly, any one who is honest with
themselves will admit that - barring truly terrible planes - almost every pilot
is biased toward the planes they love and/or fly - regardless of it's handling
and flight characteristics... especially in the experimental category; it is
very difficult for someone who has possibly put years of effort into building a
plane to realize/admit it isn't what was expected (and I speak from personal
experience regarding several different experimental planes, which I won't name
here).
And since I just noticed Mr. Sletten's
comments, I will respond - but not in kind; rather I will simply say that
such comments don't help solve any problems, but rather tend to intimidate
people who are interested in the truth. Like Mr. Cowell, Mr. Bartell's comments
on the other hand, show his professionalism and concern for the Lancair
community, and the flying community in general. However, I will take exception
with some of his points. Prior to his involvement with Lancair, there were a
number of incidents and accidents - particularly in landing - that the company
blamed on the customers/pilots and their skills. It is my understanding,
however, after some "independent" testing, it became clear that in fact the tail
was too small for directional and pitch stability, and the surfaces were later
changed - for the better. I'm sure many of you have seen the recent video of the
Turbine 4P having a gear collapse during run-up... a potential indication of
insufficient design margin. I have even had conversations in the past with MH in
which he brags about the initial Lancair designs being 'just' sufficient to
handle the potential loads (referring to there being no unnecessary/excess
weight). Do I really need to go through all of the examples to justify concerns
over the Lancair's structural or stability margins?
Since I am involved with the
development of a new aircraft, I have learned first hand that static and dynamic
stability are 'critical' to having a "safe" flying airplane, let alone a good
handling craft. Please forgive the idiocy that Mr. Sletten accuses me of, but
there seem to be many instances of extremely qualified test pilots who have lost
aircraft (or their lives) due to control and stability issues in what were
presumably considered well designed/built airplanes - and not just those
operating outside of their "design envelope." Granted, pilot error may have been
the only factor involved in the accident that this thread was started from, but
that does not then mean that the Lancair is (or is not) on the safe side of the
spectrum.
In fact, the Envoy is a case in point. We
have professional engineers who designed and developed the Envoy; but when we
brought in additional engineers and test pilots to review the numbers, we
discovered that there was an oversight made regarding the stability and
control derivatives. Thus, we decided to make changes to the design, even though
that means some expensive re-tooling and delays. Could pilots fly the Envoy as
it was... "if you fly by the numbers" and it is not "flown out of [its] design
envelope"? Of course... but I would not sleep well at night (nor would my
lawyers and insurance companies) if people were killed due in any part to
anything that I could reasonably prevent in the design process: I am not willing
to live with the false premise that "there is no such thing as a safe airplane."
Ask any test pilot if there is a plane they would never test (or continue to
test) because of safety issues; I would give good odds that the vast majority
would be due to stability or control issues. I bet there is not one of us who
hasn't said "I would never fly" certain planes... some because we may not be
good enough pilots... but most because we don't consider them
"safe."
Any qualified aeronautical engineer and/or
test pilot will know magnitudes more than I about stability and control
derivatives (derivatives are mathematically defined, and though targets may be
subjective, the numbers are not). But I know at least this much: it is not
difficult to determine if an aircraft is stable or unstable. And if a design is
unstable, it should not be built or flown. Generally the more stable the plane,
the easier it is to fly, and likewise the "safer" it is (with no disrespect to
Mr. Webster's definition quoted to me, my off-the-cuff definition is that the
airplane which allows the most pilots - independent of logged hours or natural
talent - to fly said plane with the least likelihood of incident or accident -
is by definition the safest). Thus, by my definition, a C172 is probably "safer"
than a Comanche (the two planes I trained in), though each are capable flying
machines in their own right. I guarantee that a C206 is safer than a CA-6
(Compair), though I chose to build the CA-6 for other reasons. Likewise,
everyone who owns or flies a Lancair has (hopefully) determined that they can
safely fly the aircraft. But like any aircraft design, that is unfortunately not
always true. Mr. Bartell's comment is valid, that a poor decision on the part of
a pilot is not the aircraft's fault, but it seems apparent to me that there are
plenty of planes that - if put in the exact same scenario - would not have had
anywhere near the same drastic results (in fairness, their are also very many
planes that would have the exact same result, and the Envoy could be one of
them).
Now, before any more of you start printing
sentiments like Mr. Sletten's regarding my comments, please let me finish my
point. Yes, I know and understand (really I do) that designing an aircraft is a
series of compromises, and that is why almost no two designs are alike, and
there are no perfect airplanes. Yes, I do appreciate that a C172 is not built
with the same design parameters as a Lancair, nor a Lancair as with a
Citation Jet. Otherwise, there would be no need to develop new planes with
different missions - such as the Envoy (my wife and others might say, there is
no need regardless!). Therefore, I understand that we can't reasonably expect
the same goals from each plane (performance in particular). However, I will
stick my neck out by saying that - regardless of the performance parameters of a
given "general aviation" aircraft, stability numbers (and therefore some level
of safety) can always be determined, and the design can always
be modified as needed to fit within reasonably accepted parameters. The
problem is, most experimental aircraft developers don't - due to lack of
knowledge or funds.
There really is a reason that the FAA
requires certified planes to behave certain ways - and the military requires
derivatives to be within specific ranges. Of course, the beauty of
experimental/home-built aircraft is the freedom to push the boundaries, and do
what the name implies, "experiment." However, it is only out of ignorance, or
carelessness, or even "juvenile disregard or criminal intent" - that a designer
or company would ignore the stability and control derivatives, the knowledge and
adjustment of which, can make ANY plane safer (and I will be so brash as to
say again, this is probably one of the reasons why the Columbia had so much
trouble getting certified... only the test pilots and the company can say for
sure).
I will be the first to admit that I don't
know with certainty whether the control derivatives for the Lancair were ever
determined - and if so - if the design was modified (if needed) to correct them
for a "safer" aircraft. Thus, along with Mr. Cowell, I challenge anyone who
truly knows, to not only say so, but to let everyone know what those
numbers are. It would seem that Mr. Bartell would know - at least for the planes
that have been introduced since the start of his tenure. Some of you may think
that this is meaningless mumbo-jumbo, but there are plenty of extremely
knowledgeable people on this list who know and appreciate the meaning and
importance of this subject. I encourage everyone to ask them to verify
this.
I know first-hand how disheartening it is to
want to develop my version of "the ideal airplane", only to find out that it
will take longer and cost more to do so. Should the Envoy have commercial
success, odds are that there will be incidents/accidents involving the plane.
Thus, I assume that Mr. Bartell and the Lancair team agree with me - it is
better to do things right and learn from our mistakes, than to stick our heads
in the sand ignoring problems, or using subterfuge to deal with real (and life
threatening) issues. Lancair has a loyal following, and I myself believe that
the planes are exhilarating. However, I know that I myself am not (yet) a good
enough pilot to safely fly them. But knowing what I know now, I would never do
so without first knowing those all-important, behind the scenes numbers, called
derivatives. (and yes, when they are available for the Envoy, we will make them
known).
I have learned a lot from all those who have
done so much already for the aviation community - from both successes and
failures. From building a Cubby in high school to owning a KA200 to developing
the Envoy and other aircraft, and everything in-between, I am indebted to
companies such as Lancair, Vans, and many others. But knowing what I do, I am
always concerned when an airplane goes down and a soul is lost; and like most of
you, would like to know all the reasons why.
Even if this particular tragedy had nothing
to do with the aircraft itself, our current delay with the Envoy makes me hope
that all companies - whether new or established - will continue striving to keep
experimental aviation as "safe" as possible. Frankly, doing so is an expensive
proposition, but the price will be paid... either by the company in designing
excellent aircraft, or by the customers who will end up with expensive but
inadequate machines, and which ultimately may cost lives. I repeat this, not to
downplay or dismiss proper and ongoing training, but to reiterate that we "in
the business" have a professional and moral obligation to protect those who are
placing their trust (and lives) in us.
In conclusion - decide for yourselves.
As Mr. Cowell so aptly said, "... If the assertions are valid, or
even partially valid, then the affected Lancair pilots owe him a debt of
gratitude for bringing this situation to light. If, on the other hand, the
assertions are found to be wanting either in specificity, fact, completeness or
other significant category, that would be beneficial for all of us - not the
least of whom is Mr. Ayers -- to know and understand as
well."
To those who gave me the benefit of the
doubt, I thank you. To those who are so quick to judge, you are of course free
to express your opinion, but please try to do so in a more considerate
manner.
I am willing
to learn, and be corrected. I want to know and understand... I look forward to
your help.
RA
In a message dated 5/12/2006 7:24:56 AM Central Standard Time,
marv@lancaironline.net writes:
A safer Lancair
"record"?
I would think that - by now - it would be obvious that
what is needed is a
safer "Lancair." We all know that Lancairs are
neat planes, but they are
also very hot to fly, with virtually no
allowable margin for error.
One only has to look at the statistics
and the independent research to know
it is an issue with the
plane. In fairness, this is not unique to
Lancairs...
Rienk,
In all "fairness" the statistics and independent research do not support
your claim that the Lancair safety record is related to aircraft issues. Quite
the contrary. The pilots are about 80% of the problem-- and I have done the
independent analysis. The airplanes are high performance aircraft, just like
the one you are developing, and take skills beyond the average private pilot
level.
Regards,
Jeff Edwards
LIVP N619SJ
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/338 - Release Date: 5/12/2006
|