X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 07:47:36 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from omr-d06.mx.aol.com ([205.188.109.203] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTPS id 6861157 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 06 May 2014 13:49:58 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.109.203; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-mbc01.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mbc01.mx.aol.com [172.26.221.143]) by omr-d06.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 1FB8D70004110 for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 13:49:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from core-mna004b.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mna004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.106.13]) by mtaomg-mbc01.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id A698C38000088 for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 13:49:25 -0400 (EDT) References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: P-38's and Legacy Canopys 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_8D1376AA7A63A32_9F4_B49D_webmailstg-vd07.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail STANDARD Received: from 12.110.229.82 by webmailstg-vd07.sysops.aol.com (149.174.164.84) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Tue, 06 May 2014 13:49:25 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <8D1376AA797F1EC-9F4-302B@webmailstg-vd07.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [12.110.229.82] X-Original-Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 13:49:25 -0400 (EDT) x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1add8f536920a55dab This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8D1376AA7A63A32_9F4_B49D_webmailstg-vd07.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" That's an understatement. =20 Jeff =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Wolfgang To: Lancair Mailing List Sent: Tue, May 6, 2014 12:06 pm Subject: [LML] Re: P-38's and Legacy Canopys Based on the report from the Australian ATSB, it appears that the aircraft = was=20 still controlable up to the point of hitting the curb on the intended landing surface. Only then did things turn really bad. Wolfgang ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Kevin Stallard" Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 5:08 PM Subject: RE: [LML] Re: P-38's and Legacy Canopys Hi John, There are two kinds of data we're talking about here. Accident statistical= data=20 and aerodynamic aircraft performance data. I'm after the later. I'm looking for flight data, controllability, stability, etc when the canop= y is=20 open. Just because the canopy opened prior to a crash doesn't make it the fault of the canopy. Sure it may have scared the pants off the pilot, but the question is: Is t= he=20 airplane flyable with the canopy opened? We need real, measurable controllability data. If the canopy doesn't inhibit the= =20 airplanes ability to fly when it is opened, then we shouldn't be blaming the airplane. Sure warning lights and such are helpful, but if the airplane can be shown = to=20 fly reasonably well with the canopy open don't you think that the solution to this statistical anomaly would be to include a c= anopy=20 open event during training? Show the pilot how to turn a canopy open event into a non-event? That's what I want to be able to do....I think that is a more sure way to k= eep=20 me safe. Thanks Kevin ________________________________________ From: Lancair Mailing List [lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of John Smith= =20 [john@jjts.net.au] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 5:11 AM To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: [LML] Re: P-38's and Legacy Canopys A reaction to prior post=E2=80=A6. "=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6spending a = bunch and time and money fix ing a=20 problem that may not exist, we really need to gather data, real hard data." Problem that may not exist=E2=80=A6..? Really need hard data? Why don=E2=80=99t we start at the top of the tree? 3 known fatal events d= ue flight=20 with an open canopy (at the time that I looked at all this a few months ago); this equates to around 1 in 100,000 take-offs. That= =E2=80=99s=20 appalling. Anyone think otherwise? These events also happen to account for around 10% of Legacy related fatals= . If=20 increasing awareness of this possibility and of simple practical procedures and systems to reduce the risk are available, w= hy=20 not do it? I=E2=80=99m all ears! I=E2=80=99ll be honest =E2=80=93 the only way I found about what could happ= en with the canopy=20 was when I did my transition training in 2008 with Bob Jeffries in N199L =E2=80=93 if he hadn=E2=80=99t told me about this, I most= likely would have=20 never known and consequently wouldn=E2=80=99t have installed the dual position / latch warning system in XTZ before I first flew the=20 aircraft. And then, it was the public discussion mainly on this forum that followed G= erry=20 Gould=E2=80=99s accident that finally yielded reports (and in effect a procedure for) of successful flight and landing with the canopy= =20 open. I am very grateful that I and others now have the knowledge of what has worked. We never had that information as a community= =20 before =E2=80=93 or at least it wasn=E2=80=99t out there for all to benefit from. This accident triggered an immediate upgrade of my canopy ala= rm=20 from a simple warning light to include large red flashing warnings on both EFIS screens, audible alarm, and writing up canop= y=20 open procedures (pre-airborne, and post-airborne) into my POH. A few simple steps get us closer and potentially beyond what I understand t= o be=20 a minimum GA target for fatal events of 1 in 1,000,000. They are all, along with the relative (indicative) benefits,=20 documented in Valin=E2=80=99s report. Why strive to prevent that very useful information getting out there?? I just wish others who have not survived a canopy open event had been able = to=20 receive Valin=E2=80=99s paper before those accidents occurred, and especially Gerry Gould who was the pilot of the Legacy that crashed at= =20 Geraldton =E2=80=93 Gerry was an experienced pilot who used his Legacy routinely to get from =E2=80=9Ca=E2=80=9D to =E2=80=9Cb=E2=80=9D for= his business in Australia=E2=80=99s=20 northwest, yet what followed on 18 September last year started with a simple error. The final report of this accident will be quit= e=20 comprehensive and I think is about to be released, but in meantime refer: http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_repo= rts/2013/aair/ao-2013-158.aspx BTW =E2=80=93 the figure of =E2=80=9Caround 1 in 100,000=E2=80=9D comes fro= m some assumptions below. I=20 accept not "hard research quality data", but given the goal of getting a feel for the stats on this, I felt the assumptions ar= e=20 probably OK for the current purpose. My approach was to assume a pro-rata time introduction of Legacies over a period of 10 years. = In=20 other words, based on numbers below 35 in Yr 1, another 35 in Yr 2, and other 35 in Yr 3 and so on. Of course that=E2=80=99= s not what=20 actually happened, but to get a feel for the risk of this event, I think that=E2=80=99s good enough. Irrespective of what a calc= ulated risk=20 value might be, 3 fatal events - some or all that could well have been avoided with some more broadly available knowledge - i= s 3=20 too many. Event =3D "Flight occurs with canopy unlocked and leads to a fatality" No. recorded events 3 No. Legacy's flown 350 Years in operation 10 Flight years 1925 Avg. take-off/yr 50 Total take-off to date 96250 Frequency of canopy open fatalties 3.12E-05 REF This is a "Reference event frequency"(REF) assuming all past events occurre= d=20 with aircraft / pilots:- - no alarm system - critical check lists not used - abort procedure not acknowldged - no predefined / rehearsed canopy open flight procedure - no proven flight procedure "available" Regards, John John N G Smith Tel / fax: +61-8-9385-8891 Mobile: +61-409-372-975 Email: john@jjts.net.au -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html =20 ----------MB_8D1376AA7A63A32_9F4_B49D_webmailstg-vd07.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
That's an understatement.
 
Jeff
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Wolfgang <Wolfgang@MiCom.net>
To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tue, May 6, 2014 12:06 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: P-38's and Legacy Canopys

Based on the report from the Australian =
ATSB, it appears that the aircraft was=20
still controlable up to the point of hitting the curb
on the intended landing surface. Only then did things turn really bad.

Wolfgang

----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Kevin Stallard" <kevin@arila=
bs.net>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 5:08 PM
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: P-38's and Legacy Canopys


Hi John,

There are two kinds of data we're talking about here.  Accident statistical=
 data=20
and aerodynamic aircraft performance data.  I'm
after the later.

I'm looking for flight data, controllability, stability, etc when the canop=
y is=20
open.  Just because the canopy opened prior to a
crash doesn't make it the fault of the canopy.

Sure it may have scared the pants off the pilot, but the question is:  Is t=
he=20
airplane flyable with the canopy opened?   We need
real, measurable controllability data.  If the canopy doesn't inhibit the=
=20
airplanes ability to fly when it is opened, then we
shouldn't be blaming the airplane.

Sure warning lights and such are helpful, but if the airplane can be shown =
to=20
fly reasonably well with the canopy open don't you
think that the solution to this statistical anomaly would be to include a c=
anopy=20
open event during training?  Show the pilot how to
turn a canopy open event into a non-event?

That's what I want to be able to do....I think that is a more sure way to k=
eep=20
me safe.

Thanks
Kevin


________________________________________
From: Lancair Mailing List [lml@la=
ncaironline.net] On Behalf Of John Smith=20
[john@jjts.net.au]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 5:11 AM
To: Lancair Mailing List
Subject: [LML] Re: P-38's and Legacy Canopys

A reaction to prior post=E2=80=A6.  "=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6spending a =
bunch and time and money fix ing a=20
problem that may not exist, we really need to gather
data, real hard data."

Problem that may not exist=E2=80=A6..?   Really need hard data?

Why don=E2=80=99t we start at the top of the tree?   3 known fatal events d=
ue flight=20
with an open canopy (at the time that I looked at all
this a few months ago); this equates to around 1 in 100,000 take-offs. That=
=E2=80=99s=20
appalling. Anyone think otherwise?

These events also happen to account for around 10% of Legacy related fatals=
.  If=20
increasing awareness of this possibility and of
simple practical procedures and systems to reduce the risk are available, w=
hy=20
not do it? I=E2=80=99m all ears!

I=E2=80=99ll be honest =E2=80=93 the only way I found about what could happ=
en with the canopy=20
was when I did my transition training in 2008 with Bob
Jeffries in N199L =E2=80=93 if he hadn=E2=80=99t told me about this, I most=
 likely would have=20
never known and consequently wouldn=E2=80=99t have installed
the dual position / latch warning system in XTZ before I first flew the=20
aircraft.

And then, it was the public discussion mainly on this forum that followed G=
erry=20
Gould=E2=80=99s accident that finally yielded reports (and
in effect a procedure for) of successful flight and landing with the canopy=
=20
open. I am very grateful that I and others now have the
knowledge of what has worked. We never had that information as a community=
=20
before =E2=80=93 or at least it wasn=E2=80=99t out there for all to
benefit from. This accident triggered an immediate upgrade of my canopy ala=
rm=20
from a simple warning light to include large red
flashing warnings on both EFIS screens, audible alarm, and writing up canop=
y=20
open procedures (pre-airborne, and post-airborne) into
my POH.

A few simple steps get us closer and potentially beyond what I understand t=
o be=20
a minimum GA target for fatal events of 1 in
1,000,000. They are all, along with the relative (indicative) benefits,=20
documented in Valin=E2=80=99s report.  Why strive to prevent that
very useful information getting out there??

I just wish others who have not survived a canopy open event had been able =
to=20
receive Valin=E2=80=99s paper before those accidents occurred,
and especially Gerry Gould who was the pilot of the Legacy that crashed at=
=20
Geraldton =E2=80=93 Gerry was an experienced pilot who used his
Legacy routinely to get from =E2=80=9Ca=E2=80=9D to =E2=80=9Cb=E2=80=9D for=
 his business in Australia=E2=80=99s=20
northwest, yet what followed on 18 September last year
started with a simple error. The final report of this accident will be quit=
e=20
comprehensive and I think is about to be released, but
in meantime refer:   http://www.ats=
b.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-158.aspx


BTW =E2=80=93 the figure of =E2=80=9Caround 1 in 100,000=E2=80=9D comes fro=
m some assumptions below. I=20
accept not "hard research quality data", but given
the goal of getting a feel for the stats on this, I felt the assumptions ar=
e=20
probably OK for the current purpose. My approach was to
assume a pro-rata time introduction of Legacies over a period of 10 years. =
In=20
other words, based on numbers below 35 in Yr 1,
another 35 in Yr 2, and other 35 in Yr 3 and so on. Of course that=E2=80=99=
s not what=20
actually happened, but to get a feel for the risk of
this event, I think that=E2=80=99s good enough. Irrespective of what a calc=
ulated risk=20
value might be, 3 fatal events - some or all that
could well have been avoided with some more broadly available knowledge - i=
s 3=20
too many.




Event =3D "Flight occurs with canopy unlocked and leads to a fatality"

No. recorded events             3
No. Legacy's flown              350
Years in operation              10
Flight years            1925
Avg. take-off/yr                50
Total take-off to date          96250
Frequency of canopy open fatalties      3.12E-05        REF

This is a "Reference event frequency"(REF) assuming all past events occurre=
d=20
with aircraft / pilots:-
- no alarm system
- critical check lists not used
- abort procedure not acknowldged
- no predefined / rehearsed canopy open flight procedure
- no proven flight procedure "available"


Regards,

John


John N G Smith
Tel / fax:    +61-8-9385-8891
Mobile:      +61-409-372-975
Email:         john@jjts.net.au



--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/L=
ist.html
----------MB_8D1376AA7A63A32_9F4_B49D_webmailstg-vd07.sysops.aol.com--