From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Lancair Counts - Lancair Database Version b
To: lml
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:22:06 -0500
Message-ID: <web-1570759@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <002d01c70929$41c13a40$6401a8c0@RDTVAIO>
References: <002d01c70929$41c13a40$6401a8c0@RDTVAIO>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1";format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "rtitsworth" <rtitsworth@mindspring.com>:

  Scott,
  
  The 230's should have been 235's (my ignorance and a codification error).
  Thanks for the catch.  My apologies for steeling 5 CI from the 235 drivers
  :-)
  
  I also found several of the ORIGs that I had incorrectly coded as LEGACYs
  (the field promotion has been revoked) - they are returned to their rightful
  status
  
  I also found N16PH (a 320) has an FAA  AWdate in 1974 (10 years before
  Lance's first 200).  I assume it's an faa typo and should be 1994 (the
  serial # fits about there).
  
  Thanks for the registration Info.  The dates now makes more sense to me.  I
  was advised to "reserve" my N-Number, but did not understand that
  registration was an intermediate step before the DAR airworthiness
  inspections (I'm nowhere near that far along yet).
  
  My initial confusion was partly fueled buy some of the FAA registration
  dates (CERTIFICATION DATE) being well after the AW certification dates
  (AIRWORTHY DATE).  This seemed backwards.  However, I've learned these are
  perhaps caused by an aircraft being sold and/or someone changing their
  address both of which appear to trigger a change in the  registration date
  (CERTIFICATION DATE).  The AIRWORTHY DATE stays the same (of course).
  
  Assuming the FAA db is up to date and complete (it's the best we have), then
  the most conservative view is to consider planes (db records) with AIRWORTHY
  DATES as flying and all other as not-flying.
  
  I made all the above corrections to the detail list and summaries
  (attached).  I Hope I'm not unnecessarily filling folks mailboxes and/or
  choking someone's phone line (any dial-up users?).  Everyone can replace the
  earlier .xls with this (version b) copy - if you didn't just delete prior my
  rambling anyway.
  
  After the corrections and inspection of the [Summary-by-AWYear] data, it
  DOES appear as if there is a significant difference in the average age of
  the IV&IVP vs IVT fleets as was theorized by Michael Smith earlier (the data
  will set us free).  The average IV is approx 2.5 times older (IV/IVP = 5+
  years versus IVT approx 2 years).  Now to re-integrate that into the
  accident report data/analysis, guesstimate on any miles flown differences,
  and crush some numbers.  My back the envelope scribble, shows them to still
  be close, but we'll need our statistics experts to weight in (Lorn Olson are
  you out there?)
.
  Rick Titsworth
  
[Rather than fill folks' mailboxes with this file (exceeds 1/2MB) I've 
uploaded it to the
files area on the LML website (www.lancaironline.net/maillist.html)... you can 
download it
from there.  From the LML website go to the NTSB page (about 2/3 down the 
menubar on the
left side of the page), and look for it at the bottom.  On most systems simply 
right-click
the link and select the "save target as..." option in the menu that pops up 
and pick a place
on your computer to locate the file.

Oh yeah, one other thing... Rick, I corrected a misprint in your first 
paragraph... the "5"
that you stole from the 235 guys was cubic inches, not HP.  No charge for the 
change <g>.

     <Marv>    ]