X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 11:46:06 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mta11.charter.net ([216.33.127.80] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTP id 5041205 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 11:31:44 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.33.127.80; envelope-from=troneill@charter.net Received: from imp10 ([10.20.200.15]) by mta11.charter.net (InterMail vM.7.09.02.04 201-2219-117-106-20090629) with ESMTP id <20110703153108.YNYC4091.mta11.charter.net@imp10> for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 11:31:08 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([75.132.241.174]) by imp10 with smtp.charter.net id 3TX81h00E3mUFT705TX8tt; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 11:31:08 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=G6Q69DB3AUoJKS2BpLRaz8MQ2NORN7h5HRzrJMPOhRw= c=1 sm=1 a=NgzNaKOrgnkA:10 a=yUnIBFQkZM0A:10 a=VxlS/kh5Y2KhHY/Xui1ATg==:17 a=o-CNX8-Dqb7mqV101wwA:9 a=mcjeIoazfx7v7u63Ks8A:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=8azmruHvzM9GzS2AyXsA:9 a=0tINdJCxTQHY4JQ3vKwA:7 a=VxlS/kh5Y2KhHY/Xui1ATg==:117 From: Terrence O'Neill Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-13-687386756 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Odds of...... X-Original-Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 10:31:08 -0500 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: X-Original-Message-Id: <07B20353-E853-47FC-B823-0EF8BE68A84E@charter.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) --Apple-Mail-13-687386756 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Another often overlooked alternative: * Didn't reference his AOA, and pulled his wing past the stall angle. Terrence On Jul 2, 2011, at 10:34 PM, Frederick Moreno wrote: > I suggest an alternate, positive way to look at the odds, as follows: > =20 > 1) Nearly all accidents are caused by pilot error, so look at the = pilot, not the airplane. > 2) My recollection from a comprehensive review of accident statistics = showed that you can reduce your chances of an accident by 90% by NOT = doing the following five things: > Zooming your girlfriend's house (showing off) > Attempting to exceed the capabilities of your airplane (runway length, = obstacles, climb rates, etc.) > Flying in weather when you are not equipped to deal with it > Running out of fuel, and > Flying after drinking booze. > I would say a 90% improvement is a good thing to strive for, and = seems pretty easy to do.=20 > =20 > It's not the airframe so much as it is the pilot that kills the pilot.=20= > =20 > Pilot Fred --Apple-Mail-13-687386756 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Another often overlooked alternative:
* Didn't = reference his AOA, and pulled his wing past the stall = angle.

Terrence


On Jul 2, 2011, at 10:34 PM, Frederick Moreno wrote:

I suggest an = alternate, positive way to look at the odds, as = follows:
 
1) Nearly all accidents are caused = by pilot error, so look at the pilot, not the airplane.
2) My = recollection from a comprehensive review of accident statistics showed = that you can reduce your chances of an accident by 90% by NOT doing the = following five things:
  • Zooming your girlfriend's house = (showing off)
  • Attempting to exceed the capabilities of your = airplane (runway length, obstacles, climb rates, etc.)
  • Flying = in weather when you are not equipped to deal with = it
  • Running out of fuel, and
  • Flying after drinking = booze.
I would say a 90%  improvement is a good thing = to strive for, and seems pretty easy to = do. 
 
It's not the airframe so much as it = is the pilot that kills the = pilot. 
 
Pilot = Fred
<= /span>

= --Apple-Mail-13-687386756--