X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:57:46 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mxsf05.cluster1.charter.net ([209.225.28.205] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.2) with ESMTP id 1313919 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:46:31 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.225.28.205; envelope-from=troneill@charter.net Received: from mxip03a.cluster1.charter.net (mxip03a.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.133]) by mxsf05.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6OHjk45016481 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:45:46 -0400 Received: from 68-184-229-22.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com (HELO axs) ([68.184.229.22]) by mxip03a.cluster1.charter.net with SMTP; 24 Jul 2006 13:45:46 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.07,176,1151899200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="445826030:sNHT62591614" X-Original-Message-ID: <002701c6af48$fe7c1a50$6501a8c0@axs> From: "terrence o'neill" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: response to Terrence O'Neill's posting... X-Original-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:45:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0024_01C6AF1F.156C1690" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2905 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C6AF1F.156C1690 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Barry, This is off-topic, but I'll check it out. I ran the statistics = 15-20 years ago, soending weeks collecting and analyzing the data, when = airline companies were touting 'safe passenger miles', which is a false = statistic. A loaded airliner is not safer than an empty one. Is your '10 times the fatalities per year" in terms of per aircraft = hour flown? Or per mile flown? My original complaint -- was that we blame (Lancair) pilots instead = of the airplane design. I believe that Lancair pillots as a group are = equal to or superior to most ofther types. But I injferred that = Safety-wise, all aircraft are designed with 'safety' not at the top of = the priorities list, and have serious faults. In the Lancair case, it's = the lack of a restoring pitch force at a stalled AOA, and too-light = pitch control... all of which is well documented. =20 The non-answer responses have all been complaints that airline pilots = don't need baby-sitting (I said the FAA baby-sat the airliners meaning = complete control when in motion etc.... no reference to the pilots at = all. And now we're all upset about my coments about how safe ariliners = are compared to GenAv. Irrelevant, to the aerodynamic safety of our = GenAv and Experimentals designs. So, Barry, what is your comment about the stability and = controllability at stall-region AOAs, of the early Lancairs? Make Experimentals aerodynamically safer! Terrence ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Barry Hancock=20 To: Lancair Mailing List=20 Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:43 AM Subject: [LML] Re: response to Terrence O'Neill's posting... On Jul 23, 2006, at 2:43 PM, terrence o'neill wrote: The intent was to say that the airlines are not much safer than = GenAv in spite of the fact that they have all these extra benefits: Unfortunately, while I wish this was true, statistics do not bear it = out. General aviation experiences about 10 times the fatalities per = year compared to air carriers. This does not factor in that GA = (surprisingly, on the face of it) flies about twice as many total hours = as air carriers (approx. 30 million v. about 15 million) with more take = offs and landings where 50% of all accidents happen. Regardless, dead = is dead. Anecdotally, think of how many people you know or have heard of dying = in GA accidents and compare that to how many people you know have died = in airliners. I personally (thankfully) do not know of a single person = killed in an airline crash. =20 Don't tell your wives this, but statistically speaking, GA is = significantly more dangerous than driving... = http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/2002-2013= / Fly safely! Barry ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C6AF1F.156C1690 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Barry,
    = This is=20 off-topic, but I'll check it out.  I ran the statistics 15-20 years = ago,=20 soending weeks collecting and analyzing the data, when airline companies = were=20 touting 'safe passenger miles', which is a false statistic.  A = loaded=20 airliner is not safer than an empty one.
    = Is your '10=20 times the fatalities per year" in terms of per aircraft hour = flown?  Or per=20 mile flown?
 
    = My original=20 complaint -- was that we blame (Lancair) pilots instead of the airplane=20 design.  I believe that Lancair pillots as a group are equal to or = superior=20 to most ofther types.  But I injferred that Safety-wise,  = all=20 aircraft are designed with 'safety' not at the top of the priorities = list, and=20 have serious faults.  In the Lancair case, it's the lack of a = restoring=20 pitch force at a stalled AOA, and too-light pitch control... all of = which is=20 well documented. 
 
The non-answer = responses have=20 all been complaints that airline pilots don't need baby-sitting (I said = the FAA=20 baby-sat the airliners meaning complete control when in  motion = etc.... no=20 reference to the pilots at all.  And now we're all upset about my = coments=20 about how safe ariliners are compared to GenAv.  Irrelevant, to the = aerodynamic safety of our GenAv and Experimentals designs.
 
    = So, Barry,=20 what is your comment about the stability and controllability at = stall-region=20 AOAs, of the early Lancairs?
 
  Make = Experimentals=20 aerodynamically safer!
 
Terrence
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Barry = Hancock=20
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 = 11:43=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: response to = Terrence=20 O'Neill's posting...


On Jul 23, 2006, at 2:43 PM, terrence o'neill wrote:

The intent was to say that the airlines are not much safer = than GenAv=20 in spite of the fact that they have all these extra=20 benefits:


Unfortunately, while I wish this was true, statistics do not bear = it=20 out.  General aviation experiences about 10 times the fatalities = per year=20 compared to air carriers.   This does not factor in that GA=20 (surprisingly, on the face of it) flies about twice as many total = hours as air=20 carriers (approx. 30 million v. about 15 million) with more take offs = and=20 landings where 50% of all accidents happen.  Regardless, dead is=20 dead.

Anecdotally, think of how many people you know or have heard of = dying in=20 GA accidents and compare that to how many people you know have died in = airliners.  I personally (thankfully) do not know of a single = person=20 killed in an airline crash.  

Don't tell your wives this, but statistically speaking, GA is=20 significantly more dangerous than driving...


http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/aviation/aerospace_forecast= s/2002-2013/

Fly safely!

Barry



------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C6AF1F.156C1690--