|
|
Chuck,
Thanks for helping clarify my perspective about safety. Since my opinions
may be perceived as biased, I asked Peter Garrison of "Flying" magazine to
let us know what he thought. Here is a direct quote from him on my behalf...
[note: in the interest of full disclosure, I don't really know Peter, nor
did he come to my direct aid. Rather, I happened to read this today in his
article in the current issue of Flying, June 2006, pg 57-59. What is written
below are direct quotes from his Aftermath article, entitled "Walking on the
Wall" regarding a stall/spin accident of a GP-4. He happens to refer to the
stability of Lancairs as well]
"... After more than a year of flying and many retractions, this would not
be surprising; pilots become accustomed to the quirks of their airplanes and
come to believe that their skills more than compensate for them."
"... It also suggests that the judgment that it is "not more difficult to
fly...than any other high performance aircraft" must be taken in the context
of homebuilt aircraft, not ALL aircraft."
"When, a decade or so ago, Australian authorities refused to license
homebuilt Lancairs because they lacked what was officially considered a safe
margin of longitudinal stability, designer Lance Neibauer protested that his
customers PREFERRED their airplanes unstable. Perhaps a better expression
would have been "didn't mind." After all, an airplane may be light, fast and
responsive and still return to a trimmed speed when the stick is released.
Test pilots do not rank lack of speed stability as a desirable flying
quality. Nevertheless, with airplanes just as with spouses and pets, some
people prefer things that are unusual, but their own. The FAA recognizes the
individual nature of homebuilt airplanes, even kit-built ones, by employing
a naming system that attributes the airplane to its builder, not to its
original designer."
"The builder accepts the peculiarities of his airplane, even values them,
and learns to meet them halfway. Safety, in airplanes with nonstandard
characteristics, resides in the partnership of the airplane and its
practiced pilot.
This accident should remind us to reflect on what "safe" means. You can
safely walk along the top of a wall, but there is always a risk of falling.
If you walk on the ground, you eliminate, or at least much reduce, that
risk. Some people may be much better at walking on top of walls than others,
and may even be able to run, or hop, or perform cartwheels there. But they
are still on top of a wall, and if they slip or stumble or have an off day
and make a mistake, the consequences will be worse.
Neutral pitch stability is a manageable characteristic. Helicopters are
neutrally stable and can be safely flown. Slow flight a few knots above
stalling speed is not especially difficult. Slow flight in a neutrally
stable airplane is perhaps a little more difficult than in one with strong
positive speed stability. Slow flight in a neutrally stable airplane while
hauling on a gear retraction lever is a little tricky, but one learns. A
stall recovery involving a 500-foot loss of altitude is somewhat unusual,
but one can live with it.
That's the trouble: One learns. It becomes easy. And with increasing ease
our awareness of the narrowness of the margins of safety fades. Habit breeds
complacency. We lose sight of the difference between taking risks with
impunity and not taking them at all. Consciously adopted precautions, like a
1,500-foot minimum altitude for gear retraction, begin to seem unnecessarily
conservative. Little by little we forget that despite taking millions of
steps without mishap, even a highly experienced walker may one day trip."
Hopefully, Peter's LESS biased appraisal will encourage every builder/pilot
of home-built aircraft to realize that good piloting skills can tame design
deficiencies and compromises, but can never overcome them. I just read on
the internet today that a family has a pet lion that has some neighbors
concerned. The reality is that a pet lion may be - for the most part -
harmless... But being around a lion on a "bad-hair-day" is not anywhere near
as safe as being around your average tabby.
It reminds me of the story of the rich lady interviewing chauffeurs. She
points to her long, winding driveway with shear drops along one side, and
asks the first candidate, "With me in the limo, how close would you be
comfortable driving next to the steep edge?" Full of self confidence, he
replied, " I could handle the entire driveway within two feet of the edge."
She asked the second candidate the same question, and he replied, "I am so
good, I can do it within one foot!"
The third candidates response was much different. "I'm going to stay as far
away from the edge as I can" was his reply... Who do you think got the job?
Why are pilots so quick to be one of the first two? And even worse, why do
designers think that it is okay to do the same thing with their airplanes?
How close to the edge do they get, intentionally or not? It is wrong and
plain stupid... And it is reprehensible when such an attitude ends up
getting people killed.
As Peter Garrison said, it is possible for an airplane to be light, fast and
responsive - and still be properly stable and controllable. I like going
fast, and I like sexy looking vehicles (cars, planes and boats), but I
definitely want to be as safe as possible while I am having fun. I sure hope
the Lancair team and Lancair builders can agree with this.
Again, Fly Fast, but fly Safe.
Blessings,
RA
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:19 PM
To: Lancair Mailing List
Subject: [LML] Re: IVP Crash
Posted for "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>:
I don't have a dog, or a Lancair, in this fight-happen to be a canard man
myself, but this safe/unsafe argument clearly misses the point. As Mr.
Sletten pointed out, an inanimate object is neither safe or unsafe.
True. However, it is incontrovertible that between two inanimate objects
intended to be used for flying, one is most certainly safer than the other,
as no two objects can occupy the same relative position. Of course, even
that relativity is based on pilot experience, practices and knowledge.
If RA's point was that Lancairs are unsafe, I would disagree. However if,
as I suspect, he was intending to say that 'Lancairs are relatively unsafe
compared to many other planes', then any Lancair builder or pilot that
disagrees does so at his personal peril. That's not to say that a Lancair
can't be flown safely, but it takes a higher level of skill, awareness and
vigilance than a flying a C172. If this is true, and I believe it is, then a
Lancair is relatively (to a C172) unsafe.
Yes, one can demand engineering data on stability, static and dynamic and
all kinds of numbers, but for those not whistling in the dark, just look at
the NTSB Accident List-that's evidence enough. And, it should be understood
that this log of accidents was built with the inclusion of many pilots that
were not 25 hour per year fliers with 125 hours TT. On that list are CFIIs,
Instructors, ATPs, Commercial pilots ad nauseum.
Do I dislike or am I attempting to denigrate the Lancair....not at all. I
love the look, I love the performance and I would love to have the skill to
fly one safely. Instead, I'll stick with a canard pusher that is a better
match to my piloting skills and when I get low and slow in the pattern.
In short, to not acknowledge that the Lancair requires a higher level of
skill to fly safely is simply denial. On the other hand, anyone that wants
to diplomatically remind Lancair fliers to 'be careful out there' is doing a
public service, not a disservice to the plane.
Thanks,
Chuck Jensen
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.0/341 - Release Date: 5/16/2006
|
|