|
|
Kevin,
You keep eluding to removing the mystery about the Legacy open canopy
issue. I wish you would. You have chosen to refer to parts of a thoughtful
and well written document as "antidotal and erroneous" while the only
thing you offer is conjecture. At least antidotal refers to an event or
events told of, while your point of reference is from pure fantasy.
Hamid hit the bull's eye when he stated, "The facts are, that so far, we
are aware of only one person, with unknown and unique training and
experience, flying an airplane that was aerodynamically different than
every other Legacy, and under unknown conditions of weight and balance,
who was able to land with an open canopy." I might add that the remaining
are either dead, seriously hurt, or reciting some " antidotal evidence."
Someone needs to explore the envelope to put this issue in its proper
perspective.
Valin's paper adds value to our community by recognizing an issue and
addressing it on various levels. He has brought together experiences,
antidotal or not, of others and presented credible analysis backed by his
aeronautical expertise and experience.(which you do not possess) If
anything, this recognition of the open canopy issue and the proposed fixes
make our planes more valuable.
If you are of the belief that we are all dreaming, are over reactive, or
cannot fly, etc., etc., I would suggest that you get your brass on, get in
your Legacy, and prove us all wrong. Pool your experts (I assume these
people are none of the persons that have offered antidotal evidence to
date), put a test plan together, and go for it!
I doubt you will have that brass because of what has been offered by these
others so far. Go roll that Legacy- canopy open or closed. Let me know
when you need that GoPro. I could go on and on about the people I have
instructed in the past like yourself, and suggested to them that they
would be much better off getting a camper than trying to fly. Accident
waiting to happen?
David Williams
On 5/5/14, 3:08 PM, "Kevin Stallard" <kevin@arilabs.net> wrote:
>Hi John,
>
>There are two kinds of data we're talking about here. Accident
>statistical data and aerodynamic aircraft performance data. I'm after
>the later.
>
>I'm looking for flight data, controllability, stability, etc when the
>canopy is 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
>the airplane flyable with the canopy opened? We need real, measurable
>controllability data. If the canopy doesn't inhibit the 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 fly reasonably well with the canopy open don't you think that
>the solution to this statistical anomaly would be to include a canopy
>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
>keep me safe.
>
>Thanks
>Kevin
>
>
>________________________________________
>From: Lancair Mailing List [lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of John
>Smith [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. "spending a bunch and time and money fix
>ing a problem that may not exist, we really need to gather data, real
>hard data."
>
>Problem that may not exist..? Really need hard data?
>
>Why donıt we start at the top of the tree? 3 known fatal events due
>flight 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. Thatıs
>appalling. Anyone think otherwise?
>
>These events also happen to account for around 10% of Legacy related
>fatals. If increasing awareness of this possibility and of simple
>practical procedures and systems to reduce the risk are available, why
>not do it? Iım all ears!
>
>Iıll be honest the only way I found about what could happen with the
>canopy was when I did my transition training in 2008 with Bob Jeffries in
>N199L if he hadnıt told me about this, I most likely would have never
>known and consequently wouldnıt have installed the dual position / latch
>warning system in XTZ before I first flew the aircraft.
>
>And then, it was the public discussion mainly on this forum that followed
>Gerry Gouldıs accident that finally yielded reports (and in effect a
>procedure for) of successful flight and landing with the canopy 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 before or at least
>it wasnıt out there for all to benefit from. This accident triggered an
>immediate upgrade of my canopy alarm from a simple warning light to
>include large red flashing warnings on both EFIS screens, audible alarm,
>and writing up canopy open procedures (pre-airborne, and post-airborne)
>into my POH.
>
>A few simple steps get us closer and potentially beyond what I understand
>to be a minimum GA target for fatal events of 1 in 1,000,000. They are
>all, along with the relative (indicative) benefits, documented in Valinıs
>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 receive Valinıs paper before those accidents occurred, and
>especially Gerry Gould who was the pilot of the Legacy that crashed at
>Geraldton Gerry was an experienced pilot who used his Legacy routinely
>to get from ³a² to ³b² for his business in Australiaıs northwest, yet
>what followed on 18 September last year started with a simple error. The
>final report of this accident will be quite comprehensive and I think is
>about to be released, but in meantime refer:
>http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-201
>3-158.aspx
>
>
>BTW the figure of ³around 1 in 100,000² comes from some assumptions
>below. I accept not "hard research quality data", but given the goal of
>getting a feel for the stats on this, I felt the assumptions are 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 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 thatıs not what actually happened, but to get a feel for
>the risk of this event, I think thatıs good enough. Irrespective of what
>a calculated risk value might be, 3 fatal events - some or all that could
>well have been avoided with some more broadly available knowledge - is 3
>too many.
>
>
>
>
>Event = "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
>occurred 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
|
|