X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:34:28 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.65] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.3) with ESMTP id 5354926 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:46:37 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.65; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=BN0MyAK9XMrSFT5g9EzjTJVZbcIgDB3B9lpahSrMtSHRtaF+QQvd9THV4S0TOlF8; h=Received:From:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:To:References:Message-Id:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [72.73.82.72] (helo=[192.168.1.24]) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1RnWm1-00009O-PD for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:46:01 -0500 From: Colyn Case Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2-698410834 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: aopa turbine numbers: $ vs safety X-Original-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:46:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: X-Original-Message-Id: <0CDBF357-8C00-4D5E-AA17-DF4789264F0B@earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da9400eda9248394eeabf110c0676ee3e9792350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 72.73.82.72 --Apple-Mail-2-698410834 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Is the bulk of the safety difference explained by better training? e.g. = sim training? On Jan 18, 2012, at 6:27 AM, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote: one is being installed in an Evo -----Original Message----- From: William Miller To: lml Sent: Tue, Jan 17, 2012 10:57 am Subject: [LML] aopa turbine numbers: $ vs safety Catching up on some reading, I noticed the survey of turbine aircraft in = the AOPA Pilot June, 2011. I certainly is a lot of fun to compare my = fuel flow, cost per hour, maintenance, range, fixed costs, and payload = to their numbers. Some manufacturers don't even publish their fuel flow = with the cruise data. I wonder what that could mean? Now, if we can just organize ourselves to match their safety record.... = my airplane is missing a few of the certified(or USNmilspec) = requirements, including egress and escape redundancy, fire = detection/suppression/prevention, and "more successful" complete engine = failure procedures.(multi-,BRS,eject, bail) I know of one installation of the BRS chute in an ES. Has anyone else = installed one? Bill Miller IV-P's 450 +45 --Apple-Mail-2-698410834 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Is the bulk of the safety difference explained by better training? e.g. sim training?

On Jan 18, 2012, at 6:27 AM, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote:

one is being installed in an Evo

-----Original Message-----
From: William Miller <cwfmd@yahoo.com>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tue, Jan 17, 2012 10:57 am
Subject: [LML] aopa turbine numbers: $ vs safety

Catching up on some reading, I noticed the survey of turbine aircraft in the AOPA Pilot June, 2011. I certainly is a lot of fun to compare my fuel flow, cost per hour, maintenance, range, fixed costs, and payload to their numbers. Some manufacturers don't even publish their fuel flow with the cruise data. I wonder what that could mean?

Now, if we can just organize ourselves to match their safety record.... my airplane is missing a few of the certified(or USNmilspec) requirements, including egress and escape redundancy, fire detection/suppression/prevention, and "more successful" complete engine failure procedures.(multi-,BRS,eject, bail)

I know of one installation of the BRS chute in an ES. Has anyone else installed one?

Bill Miller

IV-P's 450 +45

--Apple-Mail-2-698410834--