X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 11:04:52 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m14.mx.aol.com ([64.12.138.204] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c1) with ESMTP id 683849 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 27 Aug 2005 09:36:30 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.138.204; envelope-from=MikeEasley@aol.com Received: from MikeEasley@aol.com by imo-m14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r4.1.) id q.6a.5c63ac43 (3866) for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2005 09:35:40 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeEasley@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <6a.5c63ac43.3041c62c@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 09:35:40 EDT Subject: Lancair Accident Statistics X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1125149740" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5200 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1125149740 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I read an article the other day about some WW2 trainer (pardon my lack of detail, don't remember the model #) that is a popular plane for restoration and flying to airshows, but a small percentage of the fleet is used for air combat. The air combat planes have been breaking, cracking spars, crashing. The rest of the owners are fighting the FAA because the FAA wants to release an AD that the owners on the non-air combat aircraft don't think is necessary because they don't routinely subject their aircraft to the G forces. But the FAA insists on treating that model as one "type" and they look at the statistics for that "type" as a whole. What does that have to do with our accident statistics? The insurance companies look at Lancairs as a whole, certainly each model, but maybe even all Lancairs as a whole. I think that's one reason that Lancair Certified changed their name to Columbia. So every Lancair accident, even it it's in a IV or a Legacy, probably effects the ES guys, or the 360 guys too. The smaller fleet makes each accident a significant impact on the statistics. The other thing is a Cessna 172 is built the same as any other 172, and all the fleet is maintained by A&Ps. Not all 172s are equal, and not all A&Ps are equal. But in that fleet there is significantly more consistency from aircraft to aircraft, and from mechanic to mechanic. The parts and modifications are strictly regulated by the FAA. If I were an insurance company, those things would make me feel more comfortable. We all know that every Lancair has some builder modifications. Maybe the fuel system, maybe the engine, and many other modifications. I know that my ES doesn't even come close to the way the fuel system is in the manuals. I think mine is much better. But every modification we make introduces variability into the fleet. We don't have A&Ps breathing down our necks to make sure our planes are airworthy. And we build our planes ourselves, run our own wires, flare our own fuel lines, tighten our own bolts. Even the original design didn't have to go through the rigorous FAA certification testing. And every plane that takes flight is different than the original. Don't you think those things alone would make the insurance companies shake in their boots? In the GA fleet, one out of eight accidents are mechanically related so we are close to the rest of the GA fleet. I think EAA has shown statistics that the experimental fleet is about the same as the GA fleet in safety. A significant percentage of GA flight hours are training, and the Lancair fleet isn't sitting on the flight school flight line. I would guess the Lancairs get used for real cross country flying, significantly more than the rest of the experimental fleet or the entire GA fleet. None of these variables explain our high percentage of accidents, and fatal accidents. We all know most of the fatalities are pilot error. Pilots make errors all the time, but Lancair pilots are making a lot of fatal errors. We never hear about the errors that result in a pilot having the _#@%$_ (mailto:#@) scared out of him/her. So are Lancair pilots making more mistakes, or are Lancair pilots making the usual number of mistakes, but the aircraft is less forgiving? I don't think Lancairs are dangerous. I think the designs are squeezing out more performance with an acceptable amount of safety. I bet Greg Cole, the designer of the Legacy, worked within certain design goals. Lancairs in general use the latest airfoils, advanced flap designs, control surfaces that are efficient, etc. They get the most performance gains with the smallest safety losses. So it cuts both ways. I think making Lancairs safer means making Lancairs slower. How many people would buy a Legacy that is 20 or 30 knots slower if it stalled more gently, or landed 5 or 10 knots slower? It's hard to say. Mike Easley Flying the Slowest Lancair, the ES -------------------------------1125149740 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I read an article the other day about some WW2 trainer (pardon my lack=20= of=20 detail, don't remember the model #) that is a popular plane for restoration=20= and=20 flying to airshows, but a small percentage of the fleet is used for air=20 combat.  The air combat planes have been breaking, cracking spars,=20 crashing.  The rest of the owners are fighting the FAA because the FAA=20 wants to release an AD that the owners on the non-air combat aircraft don't=20 think is necessary because they don't routinely subject their aircraft to th= e G=20 forces.  But the FAA insists on treating that model as one "type" and t= hey=20 look at the statistics for that "type" as a whole.
 
What does that have to do with our accident statistics?  The insur= ance=20 companies look at Lancairs as a whole, certainly each model, but maybe even=20= all=20 Lancairs as a whole.  I think that's one reason that Lancair Certified=20 changed their name to Columbia.  So every Lancair accident, even it it'= s in=20 a IV or a Legacy, probably effects the ES guys, or the 360 guys too. The sma= ller=20 fleet makes each accident a significant impact on the statistics.
 
The other thing is a Cessna 172 is built the same as any other 172, and= all=20 the fleet is maintained by A&Ps.  Not all 172s are equal, and not a= ll=20 A&Ps are equal.  But in that fleet there is significantly more=20 consistency from aircraft to aircraft, and from mechanic to mechanic. =20= The=20 parts and modifications are strictly regulated by the FAA.  If I were a= n=20 insurance company, those things would make me feel more comfortable.
 
We all know that every Lancair has some builder modifications.  Ma= ybe=20 the fuel system, maybe the engine, and many other modifications.  I kno= w=20 that my ES doesn't even come close to the way the fuel system is in the=20 manuals.  I think mine is much better.  But every modification we=20= make=20 introduces variability into the fleet.  We don't have A&Ps breathin= g=20 down our necks to make sure our planes are airworthy.  And we build our= =20 planes ourselves, run our own wires, flare our own fuel lines, tighten our o= wn=20 bolts.  Even the original design didn't have to go through the rigorous= FAA=20 certification testing.  And every plane that takes flight is different=20= than=20 the original.  Don't you think those things alone would make the insura= nce=20 companies shake in their boots?
 
In the GA fleet, one out of eight accidents are mechanically related so= we=20 are close to the rest of the GA fleet.  I think EAA has shown statistic= s=20 that the experimental fleet is about the same as the GA fleet in safety.&nbs= p; A=20 significant percentage of GA flight hours are training, and the Lancair flee= t=20 isn't sitting on the flight school flight line.  I would guess the Lanc= airs=20 get used for real cross country flying, significantly more than the rest of=20= the=20 experimental fleet or the entire GA fleet.
 
None of these variables explain our high percentage of accidents, and f= atal=20 accidents.  We all know most of the fatalities are pilot error. =20 Pilots make errors all the time, but Lancair pilots are making a lot of fata= l=20 errors.  We never hear about the errors that result in a pilot having t= he=20 #@%$ scared out of him/her.  So are Lancair= =20 pilots making more mistakes, or are Lancair pilots making the usual number o= f=20 mistakes, but the aircraft is less forgiving?
 
I don't think Lancairs are dangerous.  I think the designs are=20 squeezing out more performance with an acceptable amount of safety.  I=20= bet=20 Greg Cole, the designer of the Legacy, worked within certain design goals.&n= bsp;=20 Lancairs in general use the latest airfoils, advanced flap designs, control=20 surfaces that are efficient, etc.  They get the most performance gains=20= with=20 the smallest safety losses.  So it cuts both ways.  I think making= =20 Lancairs safer means making Lancairs slower.  How many people would buy= a=20 Legacy that is 20 or 30 knots slower if it stalled more gently, or landed 5=20= or=20 10 knots slower?  It's hard to say.
 
Mike Easley
Flying the Slowest Lancair, the ES
 -------------------------------1125149740--