|
I was also curious as to whether
builders would have a better or worse record than buyers and I've started going
through the accident records. At first I was thinking that the patience and
persistance required to spend years building might reveal a different mindset
from a person who wanted to buy (or hire construction of) the fastest plane they
could find or afford. Then it occurred to me that there's a certain amount of
risk-taking involved in the decision to commit large amounts of money and time
to a project that may never be completed. How might that translate into flying
behavior?
The resulting plane may not handle the way
the builder expected. A buyer has the advantage of test flying a completed
aircraft. How many planes are sold because the builder didn't like the results
and how many are to get funds for the next project? Building can be addictive.
There's the effect of acetone and sanding dust on the brain and the Zen of the
long board. Some builders just want to get in the air and others like the
process. I'm not sure that any examination of records can really get into the
heads of builders or buyers.
I'm about 1/3 through and haven't looked at
the results yet. I'm not sure how revealing the exercise might be. First off,
the person listed as "Manufacturer" may not have actually built the plane.
Some have set up LLC's that obscure the actual builder or owner. The
accident pilot may or may not be the registered owner. An accident may start as
a mechanical event such as loss of power on takeoff that leaves
no time or space to maneuver. To put things in perspective I also
plan to look at how many of each type have airworthiness
certificates.
This may take a while.
On the issue of training I'd like to add formation
flying to the list of skill enhancements.
My worst "Aw Sh_t" moment happened so fast
there was not time to think, only react.
I hit serious wind shear when I dropped below
tree line base to final at a small grass strip (not in a Lancair). Until
that point I was consciously compensating for the conditions but I was unaware
of the most important factor in the scenario.
I think the only reason I didn't dig a wing
in was experience with the plane. I just kept yanking to keep the plane upright.
As it was I ended up with a bent pitot tube and clover in an aileron
hinge.
I think I've improved my physical
piloting skills the most from formation flying. Not going up and
flying near your buddy but structured training like one of the FAST
programs.
I'm not ex-military and I had no idea the
experience was out there until stumbled across it and joined JLFC.
It's hard work but I enjoy it. What I got out of it is learning to fly a plane
by feel, making minute adjustments while your eyes are glued to your Lead. With
a good (steady) Lead you get immediate feedback for every move you make because
you can see the effect as your plane moves in relation to his. Changes of a foot
or two become obvious and you're constantly correcting. There's no other
way I can think of to get that kind of feedback. I think it's got to build
ingrained responses so that your body knows which direction and just how
much to move the stick to get a desired result.
At the same time, aerobatics and spin
training might help with the disorientation. I haven't done enough to build up
an automatic response but I do know what it's like to be upside down and I have
done some spins.
To expand on what John Halle said, I try not
to get into something I can't handle. I tend to be very cautious because flight
conditions are always changing and my ability (or lack) varies from day to day
or during the course of the flight depending on how I'm feeling. I don't
think judgement can be taught. It's the result of experience. Experience comes
from mistakes that you have survived and learned from. Some people don't survive
and some never learn.
I agree that part of the problem with
Lancairs is that there's no way to train safely for those times when the
envelope is exceeded. I don't have a suggestion for that except to have an
experienced test pilot define the envelope for your plane then fly
with you as you approach the limits. -Bill Wade
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 11:09
PM
Subject: [LML] Lancair accidents
I've been following this thread with interest and, while I
certainly don't have any thoughts that the professional pilots among us
haven't brought up, I have a couple thoughts/questions. First, I don't
know if it's proportional but it must be taken into account that there are a
lot more Lancairs getting into the air every year. We seem to have some
accomplished statisticians in the group and perhaps they can find out how much
the flying fleet is increasing year by year. Also, I'd be interested in
knowing whether the accident rate is higher for original owners of the planes
or is it biased to secondary owners. Another thing that is changing a
lot over the years is that more and more Lancairs are being sold and I wonder
if someone who'd rather buy than spend the time building has a different mind
set about flying than someone who is involved enough to go through the
challenge of building. Checking the registration on Lancairs involved in
accidents will show who the original builder was. Perhaps second owners
are less likely to get appropriate training because they haven't been
following all the conversations we see on the LML and may regard a Lancair as
just another airplane. Just a thought. Another factor may be that
in many cases builders tend to not do much flying during the building process
and may not be as sharp during the initial flight testing as they should
be.
As I said, I have more questions than answers. Perhaps
others have some numbers to apply to these situations. Might be
interesting and enlightening.
Leighton Mangels
|