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
#@%$ 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