X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 12:01:44 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da03.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.145] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.5) with ESMTP id 5567095 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 29 May 2012 22:47:04 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.145; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-da01.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-da01.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.137]) by imr-da03.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q4U2kTLZ027872 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 22:46:29 -0400 Received: from core-mnc002a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mnc002.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.106.197]) by mtaomg-da01.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 88AC4E000085 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 22:46:29 -0400 (EDT) References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Experimental Aircraft Accidents In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CF0C258C838AA9_235C_46C67_webmail-stg-d14.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 36210-STANDARD Received: from 24.107.65.42 by webmail-stg-d14.sysops.aol.com (205.188.185.232) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Tue, 29 May 2012 22:46:29 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CF0C258C7C6680-235C-105DA@webmail-stg-d14.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [24.107.65.42] X-Original-Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 22:46:29 -0400 (EDT) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:455873632:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d33894fc58a057acf This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CF0C258C838AA9_235C_46C67_webmail-stg-d14.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Rob, There were 222 accidents involving 225 aircraft in CY 2011. 55 accidents we= re powerplant failures. Of the 125 aircraft with known hours available, 33 = accidents occurred in Phase I. The NTSB report will be out in June.=20 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. =20 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. -----Original Message----- From: rwolf99 To: lml Sent: Tue, May 29, 2012 10:09 am Subject: [LML] Re: Experimental Aircraft Accidents Jeff - =20 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. =20 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. =20 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. =20 Thanks. =20 - Rob Wolf ----------MB_8CF0C258C838AA9_235C_46C67_webmail-stg-d14.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Rob,
 
There were 222 accidents involving 225 aircraft in CY 2011. 55 acciden= ts were powerplant failures. Of the 125 aircraft with known hours available= , 33 accidents occurred in Phase I. The NTSB report will be out in June.
 
Jeff
Do the results change appreciably if we subtract accidents that happen= ed during the initial 25 hr or 40 hr flyoff period?  I would expect a = greater accident rate during that period.  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.
 
Moving on, what are the most significant causes of accidents?  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).  These numbers are fuzzy recollections only.  I= think you would have a greater knowledge than I do in this area.



= -----Original Message-----
From: rwolf99 <rwolf99@aol.com>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tue, May 29, 2012 10:09 am
Subject: [LML] Re: Experimental Aircraft Accidents

Jeff -
 
Do the results change appreciably if we subtract accidents that happen= ed during the initial 25 hr or 40 hr flyoff period?  I would expect a = greater accident rate during that period.  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.
 
Moving on, what are the most significant causes of accidents?  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).  These numbers are fuzzy recollections only.  I= think you would have a greater knowledge than I do in this area.
 
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.
 
Thanks.
 
- Rob Wolf
 ----------MB_8CF0C258C838AA9_235C_46C67_webmail-stg-d14.sysops.aol.com--