X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:51:52 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from QMTA10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.17] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with ESMTP id 3087971 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:38:29 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.62.17; envelope-from=j.hafen@comcast.net Received: from OMTA10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.28]) by QMTA10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 4zuH1a0010cZkys5AGduGk; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 04:37:54 +0000 Received: from [10.0.1.199] ([76.22.72.149]) by OMTA10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 5Gdt1a00B3DF2e43WGdtcg; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 04:37:54 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=wC-8-jOfZNgA:10 a=AL8P068kPedtiCppETUA:9 a=ZjW4XOcsYMmdlVBVjsUA:7 a=NTDxi4GM-uLTLAAqYTwnaz-IimcA:4 a=dLJimWRr_REA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=oltf0pfCdT4A:10 a=dK41ZfZbufMqT-64A0kA:9 a=BPdUIu2L4Om9001qYk8A:7 a=duLbcOewUFepcBeAsnBjITLVCOIA:4 a=Sz-0p1zU2dQA:10 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.12.0.080729 X-Original-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:37:53 -0700 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: some thoughts on accidents From: John Hafen X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: some thoughts on accidents Thread-Index: AckEENcCIE+OwE7TFkq1U8xeDfm82w== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3302199474_330888" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3302199474_330888 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable David T. says =B3I think that the problem lies elsewhere.........=B2 OK David. Good cliff hanger. Nuff suspense already. If you know the problem, please share. We=B9re dying to find out. What is the problem? John Hafen IVP 413AJ On 8/21/08 4:53 PM, "Taylor, David" wrote: > Everybody keeps saying the same thing about training and taking these > airplanes seriously and then proceeds to chastise the Lancair population = for > carelessness and lack of judgement. > =20 > I do not understand this. Each and every Lancair pilot I know is extreme= ly > serious about his plane and takes flying and planning and weather and tra= ining > extremely seriously. (Anyone who can afford these things is by definitio= n > responsible.) > =20 > In other words, THIS IS NOT THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM AND ALL THESE > WARNINGS WILL DO NOTHING TO REDUCE CRASHES. > =20 > I think that the problem lies elsewhere=8A=8A=8A.. > =20 > David T. > Legacy RG > =20 >=20 > From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ar= t > Jensen > Sent: Thu, August 21, 2008 11:03 > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Subject: [LML] Re: some thoughts on accidents > =20 > =20 > How many pilots out there have 1000 hours in type? Not many, but by n= ow > they know their airplanes and they have been making good decisions, so fa= r! > Most of us who own a Lancair today will not keep the airplane long enough= to > fly 1000 hours. It will be sold to someone and the clock will start tick= ing > again. Then the new owner has to get through that first 200 hours where = they > are at the greatest risk. > =20 > Everyone who has commented so far seems to recognize that training is > probably the answer to reducing accidents. > =20 > Art=20 > =20 >> 0 pilots > 1000 hours in type Lancair >> =20 >> of the 108 reorted Lancair accident pilots 40.7% had less than 51 hours= time >> in type; 75.9% had less than 201 hours time in type. >> if you have more than 1000 hours time in type-- keep on doing what you = are >> doing..... >> =20 >> Regards, >> =20 >> Jeff Edwards >> =20 >> =20 >> =20 > =20 > =20 >=20 --B_3302199474_330888 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [LML] Re: some thoughts on accidents David T. says “I think that the problem lies elsewhere.........̶= 1;

OK David.  Good cliff hanger.  Nuff suspense already.

If you know the problem, please share.  We’re dying to find out.=  What is the problem?

John Hafen
IVP 413AJ


On 8/21/08 4:53 PM, "Taylor, David" <dtaylor@crescentpark.com> wrote:

<= SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>Everybody keeps saying the= same thing about training and taking these airplanes seriously and then pro= ceeds to chastise the Lancair population for carelessness and lack of judgem= ent.  
 
I do not understand this.  Each and every Lancair pilot I know is extr= emely serious about his plane and takes flying and planning and weather and = training extremely seriously.  (Anyone who can afford these things is b= y definition responsible.)
 
In other words, THIS IS NOT THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM AND ALL THESE WAR= NINGS WILL DO NOTHING TO REDUCE CRASHES.
 
I think that the problem lies elsewhere………..
 
David T.
Legacy RG
 

From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf O= f Art Jensen
Sent: Thu, August 21, 2008 11:03
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: some thoughts on accidents

   How many pilots out there have 1000 hours in type?  Not = many, but by now they know their airplanes and they have been making good de= cisions, so far!  Most of us who own a Lancair today will not keep the = airplane long enough to fly 1000 hours.  It will be sold to someone and= the clock will start ticking again.  Then the new owner has to get thr= ough that first 200 hours where they are at the greatest risk.=
  
  Everyone who has commented so far seems to recognize that training = is probably the answer to reducing accidents.
  
  Art
 
<= SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>  
 
=  

--B_3302199474_330888--