Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 11:09:08 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-5565703@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.91.95; envelope-from=rwolf99@aol.com
Subject: Re: [LML] Experimental Aircraft Accidents
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: rwolf99@aol.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
 boundary="--------MB_8CF0B61BA7716C1_10F0_186CE9_webmail-m147.sysops.aol.com"
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d33c74fc4417d49cf

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----------MB_8CF0B61BA7716C1_10F0_186CE9_webmail-m147.sysops.aol.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


Jeff -

Do the results change appreciably if we subtract accidents that happened du=
ring the initial 25 hr or 40 hr flyoff period?  I would expect a greater ac=
cident rate during that period.  If we are to compare apples to apples, we =
should compare the accient rate once the homebuilt is "complete", i.e., com=
pleted it's test period.

Moving on, what are the most significant causes of accidents?  I had though=
t it was something like 25-40% due to fuel issues, 25% due to other engine =
stoppages, 25% due to pilot error (continued flight into IMC, stall/spin, a=
nd so forth -- although one could argue that stall/spin may also be related=
 to the aircraft, if the experimental aircraft has unusual stall characteri=
stics).  These numbers are fuzzy recollections only.  I think you would hav=
e a greater knowledge than I do in this area.

What I'm looking for here is "Focus on this first" items as it pertains to =
an aircraft still under construction, or being inspected at annual.  For ex=
ample, I doubt that failure of a retractable gear to extend causes many fat=
alities, although it is never good.

Thanks.

- Rob Wolf

----------MB_8CF0B61BA7716C1_10F0_186CE9_webmail-m147.sysops.aol.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<font color=3D'black' size=3D'2' face=3D'arial'>
<div>Jeff -</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>Do the results change appreciably if we subtract accidents that happen=
ed during the initial 25 hr or 40 hr flyoff period?&nbsp; I would expect a =
greater accident rate during that period.&nbsp; If we are to compare apples=
 to apples, we should compare the accient rate once the homebuilt is "compl=
ete", i.e., completed it's test period.</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>Moving on, what are the most significant causes of accidents?&nbsp; I =
had thought it was something like 25-40% due to fuel issues, 25% due to oth=
er engine stoppages, 25% due to pilot error (continued flight into IMC, sta=
ll/spin, and so forth -- although one could argue that stall/spin may also =
be related to the aircraft, if the experimental aircraft has unusual stall =
characteristics).&nbsp; These numbers are fuzzy recollections only.&nbsp; I=
 think you would have a greater knowledge than I do in this area.</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>What I'm looking for here is "Focus on this first" items as it pertain=
s to an aircraft still under construction, or being inspected at annual.&nb=
sp; For example, I doubt that failure of a retractable gear to extend cause=
s many fatalities, although it is never good.</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>Thanks.</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>- Rob Wolf</div>
</font>
----------MB_8CF0B61BA7716C1_10F0_186CE9_webmail-m147.sysops.aol.com--