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 imr-db02.mx.aol.com ([205.188.91.96] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTP id 5041153 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 09:17:23 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.91.96; envelope-from=MikeEasley@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-mb05.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mb05.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.76]) by imr-db02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p63DGgfm028750 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 09:16:42 -0400 Received: from core-mkc003b.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mkc003.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.98.73]) by mtaomg-mb05.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 35E6FE00008E for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 09:16:42 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeEasley@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <3f572.2a750a89.3b41c5ba@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 09:16:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Odds of...... X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3f572.2a750a89.3b41c5ba_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.6 sub 5003 X-AOL-IP: 75.71.55.189 X-Originating-IP: [75.71.55.189] x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:351106592:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d294c4e106bba142a --part1_3f572.2a750a89.3b41c5ba_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jay makes a good point, it isn't a purely random statistical event when you get into a Lancair, or any airplane and go flying. The dependent variable is the fatal accident statistic for IVPs. The independent variables are the aircraft and the PILOT. About 1/8 of aircraft fatal accidents are caused by a failure of the airplane, leaving about 7/8 caused by a "failure" of the pilot. So 7 out of 8 crashes happen in a perfectly good airplane. The large majority of pilot caused accidents are related to poor decision making, not skill. No doubt, the IVP requires more skill and an even higher level of decision making to fly safely than other airplanes. But that doesn't make the IVP an unsafe airplane. We spend a lot of time on the LML focusing on building safer airplanes. That's what this forum is for. But statistically, if you make your airplane twice as safe, you have only improved your overall safety by 6%. But if you make the pilot twice as safe, you increase your overall safety by 42%. The two poorest decisions an IVP pilot can make are to skip recurrent training and rely on the systems in our airplanes to make them safe. The most significant independent variable in this equation is between our ears. Decisions made by the owner/pilot, whether on the ground to get recurrent training or in the air to fly safely, have by far the greatest effect on the dependent variable. So an IVP pilot who makes good decisions, backed up with a high level of skill and recurrent training, is not rolling the dice, but making sure the independent variables, safe airplane and safe pilot, are controlling the outcome of the statistical event. Mike Easley Colorado Springs --part1_3f572.2a750a89.3b41c5ba_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jay makes a good point, it isn't a purely random statistical even= t=20 when you get into a Lancair, or any airplane and go flying. The dependent= =20 variable is the fatal accident statistic for IVPs. The independent=20 variables are the aircraft and the PILOT.

About 1/8 of aircraft fatal accidents are caused by a failure of = the=20 airplane, leaving about 7/8 caused by a "failure" of the pilot. So 7 out of= 8=20 crashes happen in a perfectly good airplane.

The large majority of pilot caused accidents are related to poor decis= ion=20 making, not skill. No doubt, the IVP requires more skill and an even higher= =20 level of decision making to fly safely than other airplanes. But that doesn= 't=20 make the IVP an unsafe airplane.

We spend a lot of time on the LML focusing on building safer=20 airplanes. That's what this forum is for.=20 But statistically, if you make your airplane twice as safe, you have o= nly=20 improved your overall safety by 6%. But if you make the pilot twice as= =20 safe, you increase your overall safety by 42%.

The two poorest decisions an IVP pilot can make are to skip recurrent= =20 training and rely on the systems in our airplanes to make them safe. The mo= st=20 significant independent variable in this equation is between our ears. = ;=20 Decisions made by the owner/pilot, whether on the ground to get recurrent= =20 training or in the air to fly safely, have by far the greatest effect on th= e=20 dependent variable.

So an IVP pilot who makes good decisions, backed up with a high level = of=20 skill and recurrent training, is not rolling the dice, but making sure the= =20 independent variables, safe airplane and safe pilot, are controlling t= he=20 outcome of the statistical event.

Mike Easley

Colorado Springs

--part1_3f572.2a750a89.3b41c5ba_boundary--