From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: Lancair Accident Statistics
To: lml
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:13:19 -0400
Message-ID: <web-684808@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <17E9FE5945A57A41B4D8C07737DB60721981B9@PDX-MX6.stoel.com>
References: <17E9FE5945A57A41B4D8C07737DB60721981B9@PDX-MX6.stoel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Halle, John" <JJHALLE@stoel.com>:

  It is hard to extrapolate from statistics without studying them carefully,
which I don't claim to have done.  That said, my impression is that it is
pretty clear from the kind of accidents that Lancair pilots are having that
the reason the statistics, and particularly the fatal statistics, are worse
for Lancairs than for other piston singles is predominantly bad judgement.
  When I was thinking about buying a Legacy, I looked pretty carefully at any
evidence I could find that design or construction flaws contributed to the
high accident rate and I must say that I could not then and cannot now find
such evidence.  There are very few accidents attributable to design flaws and,
while construction glitches have been contributing factors in accidents (e.g.
faulty construction of gas tanks) the ultimate cause was usually still pilot
error (trying to stretch a VERY long X-country leg.)  The lack of
design/construction flaws is particularly reassuring in the case of a/c built
more or less as Lancair designed them.  The rate climbs when builders try
radical new things (mostly on engines) but that is to be expected and is
obviously a choice that the rest of us are free not to make.
  
  Similarly, it seems to me that the learning curve accidents are no more
prevalent than they are for most piston singles.  Yes, Lancairs are higher
performance but it really doesn't matter all that much and the typical
low-time Lanciar pilot is generally more experienced than the typical low-time
172 driver.  I keep hearing about how the accident rate is high because of the
retrac feature but we don't seem to have a lot of inadvertent gear up
accidents.
  
  That leaves judgment and the record here is simply awful.  We don't do
adequate preflights; we accept non-functioning or malfunctioning equipment
that other pilots don't (or can't legally) accept.  We fly in conditions that
exceed our skill limits and sometimes the a/c performance limits.  These
accidents are 100% avoidable without having to trade off performance in any
respect.  We just have to recognize that general aviation aircraft are a
fascinating hobby and can also be a very efficient form of transportation.
  They are not a dependable way of getting anywhere and it is not uncommon for
the situation to require a decision to remain with both feet firmly planted on
the ground.  What distinguishes Lancair pilots from other GA pilots (and their
accident rate from the general GA accident rate) is the frequency with which
we demonstrate that we are unable to make these decisions prudently.
  
  The insurance companies know this well.  (Unlike me, they are very good at
analyzing data.)  When Avemco pulled out of the high performance experimental
market (while I was building and much to my consternation) I spent about an
hour on the phone with a Senior VP.  What he knew was scary.  Not only did he
have a firm grasp of the statistics, he could name the pilots in each case and
knew what their background was.  When I suggested that formal training might
help he pointed out to me that two of the fatal Lancair accidents (both the
result of poor judgment) had involved people hired to do Lancair training.
  (There have been two more since that time.)
  
  To quote from a famous comic strip:  "We have met the enemy and he is us."