|
|
This is going to sound like I am against "training". I am not. In fact, I am all for it IF it is not relied on to do more than it can do. The sad fact is that lack of training is not what kills most GA pilots. Lack of judgment is. After five years in the Lancair community, I think I can say that, on balance, the airplanes are not a problem (they don't let us down any more often than any other single engine piston plane.) Also on balance, training is not a problem (the average Lancair pilot is, by quite a wide margin, more skilled and better informed than the average GA pilot.) That leaves judgment and recent history suggests that, in that category, Lancair pilots suffer in comparison with their peers in the certified world. As a non-engineer in a community disproportionately populated with engineers, let me suggest that part of the poor judgment problem may be attributable to a mindset that assumes that an understanding of data solves any problem. If you just know and apply the maneuvering speed mantra when you find yourself in a thunderstorm, everything will be fine. If you just have data for useable fuel at every conceivable angle of attack, you won't run out of gas. If you just know the exact (to the knot) best glide airspeed, you can survive losing the only engine you got. We are quick to cogratulate people who have demonstrated these skills and to condemn those who seem lacking. I have seen literally hundreds of discussions in this forum advancing that point of view and I think it by and large misses the point. The point that actually makes a difference is the point that gets you to turn around when you are not dead certain that there are no CBs in front of you. It is that you fill up your gas tank any time there is the slightest doubt in your mind as to what you fuel state is. It is that you do whatever maintenance is required so that obvious warning signs from your engine are not ignored. If you do those things, hopefully, you will not have to demonstrate the mastery of data and awesome manual dexterity that we seem so much to admire.
I wish there was a course in judgment but I don't know of one. In the absence of such a course, what I hope for every one of us (and our wives and families who depend on us not to screw up) is that we try to work on making better judgments. Turning back if there is a problem. Topping the tanks even if it is not necessary. Adding ten miles to the flight plan rather than fly for 500 miles straight down the cascades/sierras. None of these things require any data or any flying skill. They are just common sense. The more common it gets, the more of us will show up at the fly-in each September.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marvin Kaye [mailto:marv@lancaironline.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 5:52 AM
Subject: Re: Single Pilot IFR
Posted for "Giffen A Marr" <gamarr@charter.net>:
Totally agree that flying into a thunderstorm is akin to committing suicide.
The facts are that we have had 3 or 4 Lancair IV-P's which have done it
inadvertently and been spit out in pieces. I don't remember anyone
addressing the benefits of going to maneuvering speed as soon as you
encounter sever turbulence to try and mitigate the results. Perhaps the
results would have been the same, but at least you have the highest margin
you can get at that speed. If you continue at your cruise speed, we know
what the results are. There are a lot of us that have not experienced sever
turbulence in our aircraft, but training to get to your maneuvering speed
ASAP, in my opinion, should be emphasized. I know that you are along for the
ride, that the primary goal is to maintain a level attitude and accept
whatever altitude variation you get, and try to not exceed your maneuvering
airspeed or stall the aircraft.
Giff Marr
LIV-P 40%
|
|