Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:13:09 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-3084639@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.36.178.142; envelope-from=JJHALLE@stoel.com
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: some thoughts on accidents
Thread-Topic: some thoughts on accidents
Thread-Index: AckBWFSlt/8MkHujTpa7wCwCawwGCg==
References: <redirect-3080630@logan.com>
From: "Halle, John" <JJHALLE@stoel.com>

In the seven years (and more than 700 hrs.) that I have been a part of =
the Lancair community, I have had literally hundreds of discussions =
about what is killing Lancair pilots at a totally unacceptable rate.  I =
have also listened to presentations such as Jeff's at OSH.  We all keep =
agreeing that there is a critical problem, we generally identify =
correctly what it is and we all profess a commitment to do something =
about it.  But the accident rate continues to be way higher than it =
should be.  People like Joe Bartels and Tim Ong are frustrated beyond =
description but at a loss to find anything effective to do about it.  I =
suspect I can't either but, in an effort to do what I can, here are some =
thoughts generally centered around what I think are misperceptions that =
those who get into these crashes seem to have about their own =
capabilities and the capabilities of the aircraft (with apologies for =
the length.)

1.  The Aircraft
=20
It's not a Cessna 172 or a Piper Cherokee or even a Bonanza or a Mooney. =
 Aircraft design is, as everyone knows, a matter of tradeoffs and the =
tradeoffs in the case of Lancairs are in favor of performance.  In the =
hands of an experienced pilot with substantial time in type they are a =
dream to fly; they are stable, predictable and well balanced.  If the =
airplane flys where it shouldn't it's not the airplane's fault.  They =
are, however, not a particularly easy aircraft to learn how to land.  I =
came from a background that included military flying and carrier =
landings and I would say it took me well over 100 landings to feel as if =
I was in control, more than any other airplane I ever flew.  More =
importantly, they have stall/spin characteristics that are at best =
poorly understood (a result of a lack of data from those who lived to =
tell about it) and at worst (and in all probability) significantly =
adverse.  This does not make the aircraft dangerous -- it just means =
that they need to be flown with the fact in mind that a stall/spin may =
not (probably is not) survivable in a large percentage of cases.  It =
means that, whatever the skill level of any pilot, he or she needs to =
fly the aircraft with whatever margins are required to reduce the risk =
of stall to virtually zero.  I you are an ace (more about that below) =
maybe you can fly at 1.1 or 1.2 x VS.  If you are not an ace, try north =
of 1.5 unless you are flared out over a runway.  That's what is taught =
in all of the training programs I know of and it is an excellent idea.  =
Neither my military nor my civilian training taught me this but it is an =
essential element of safety in Lancairs.
=20
Then we get to the one I just don't understand.  Contrary to what seems =
from the record to have been a significant minority view among Lancair =
pilots, Lancairs cannot safely fly through thunderstorms.  WELL, DUH!  =
Just exactly who doesn't know this?  No airplane can safely fly through =
a thunderstorm and it seems that everyone in the world knows this but =
us.  A couple weeks ago it took a fellow Lancair pilot and me 14 hours =
to get from Chicago to Billings on the airlines.  The principal reason =
was a fairly modest line of thunderstorms passing over ORD when our =
departure was scheduled and the resulting decision to shut down ORD for =
over an hour, disrupting traffic throughout the country, costing the =
airlines hundreds of thousands of dollars that they don't have and all =
kinds of passenger frustration, ours included.  Any chance whoever made =
this costly decision knew something?  If I was going to fly through a =
thunderstorm, my aircraft of choice would be an F-9 (which you cannot do =
any significant damage to with a sledgehammer) but an instructor and I =
spent two unscheduled days in Pensacola rather than try to fly our F-9 =
through a line of thunderstorms.  There is no reason why we cannot, as a =
group, get this right.  Friends don't let friends fly through =
thunderstorms.
=20
2.  Us
=20
One of the best things about being a part of the Lancair community is =
the people but modesty is not among the most common virtues that we =
display as a group and, as always, when the testosterone starts to flow, =
the most modest among us always seem to include those with the most =
impressive resumes.  Anyone ever hear Darryl Greenameyer or Gordon Hardy =
boast about their awsome skill and cunning?  I am personally waiting =
until my achievement matches theirs before I let loose with a little =
bragging.  I'm not against bragging, merited or otherwise, as long as it =
stays in the bar.  Unfortunately, we seem, as a group to be unusually =
susceptible to believing our own bs.  So maybe it would help to review a =
few unfortunate truths:  first, the fact that you built your airplane =
and did the first flight does not mean you are a test pilot.  It doesn't =
even mean  that you are a particularly good pilot (although you might or =
might not be.)  Second, the fact that you pursue an inherently risky =
hobby and are still alive doesn't make you an ace.  It may only mean =
that you have been lucky so far and luck has a way of running out.  The =
record provides no evidence that, as a group, our skill levels are any =
different from those of the general GA community and when it comes to =
judgment, there is ample evidence that we fall far short of that =
standard.
=20
I think it is a fair statement that we are, as a group, flying aircraft =
that are substantially less forgiving than the typical spam can with =
skill levels no better than those of the average spam can driver.  Both =
groups run the gamut from plumber to ace with most of us falling =
somewhere in between.  The fact that we are taking on the added =
challenge of flying aircraft with performance driven designs with no =
better skills than those who fly more forgiving aircraft is not =
necessarily dangerous UNLESS we fail to understand and accept that fact =
and take appropriate precautions.  If you are a cherokee driver with a =
hundred hours or so and want to transition to a 172, a quick spin or two =
around the pattern (and maybe a stall series) will make you proficient =
enough to be safe.  Even transitioning to a more powerful aircraft =
(beechcraft, mooney) can be done by an amateur with reasonable skills =
fairly quickly and simply.  Such is not the case transitioning to =
Lancairs, if only because, in an alarming number of cases, a Lancair =
pilot's first stall has proven to be his last.  There are a number of =
excellent training alternatives and they should be taken advantage of.
=20
A pilot of modest skill can easily be a safe Lancair pilot IF he or she =
gets good training (and, for the record, the insurance companies have no =
idea how much training is enough) understands and respects the limits =
imposed both by the aircraft and their own skill levels and leaves =
appropriate margins for the type of aircraft being flown.  Without =
following these rules, the record shows that we are engaged in a =
passtime so dangerous as to be almost foolhardy.
=20
Take a look at Jeff's statistics.  If we could just stay out of =
thunderstorms and stalls, our fatal accident rate would shrink to a =
fraction of what it presently is.  Observing these rules should be =
within the ability of any pilot other than someone who would be unsafe =
at the controls of any aircraft so there is no reason that we can't get =
there.  It's a head thing.  PLEASE, fly safe and encourage others to do =
likewise!
=20
=20