Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:03:02 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-1565917@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.229.254.14; envelope-from=jschroeder@perigee.net
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Lancair down in Georgia - Training
References: <list-1565015@logan.com>
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-15
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <list-1565015@logan.com>
User-Agent: Opera M2/8.54 (Win32, build 7730)

Rick -

Very well said.

John Schroeder


==============================
>
> I'm not a turbine expert (not even close) and don't have turbine horse in
> the race.  However, seems that hitting the ground (or water), loss of
> control due to icing, or in-flight breakup are factors that should not enter
> into the factual consideration of turbine reliability.  In those cases, it's
> true the engines did stop (eventually), however it was after the fact.
> Since, recips also stop with fuel starvation; I'd also eliminate that from
> my engine reliability consideration.  You could argue it from an overall
> "systems" perspective - however fuel management is not uniquely a turbine
> issue.
>
>
> If you disregard incidents due to terrain, icing, in-flight breakup, etc
> from the Lancair turbine crash statistics, there is not much (any) data left
> to support you thoughts that there is a "high rate of unexplained engine
> failures".  Unless there is data to show otherwise, your perceptions are
> simply incorrect.  Nothing wrong with that - the scientific method is to
> start with a theory and then prove or disprove it with facts, logic and/or
> experimentation.  The outcome is usually valuable either way.
>
>
> Overall, #1 cause of light plane crashes and fatalities is pilot error (and
> has been historically).  It seems this most recent accident (along with many
> others) reinforces this and shows we should all spend more time training
> (assuming training helps reduce pilot errors).
>
>
> It would be interesting to be able to factually review historic accident
> statistics (especially the pilot error ones), relative to the amount of
> recurrent training the pilots had.
>
> Perhaps this is something that NAFI could/should attempt.    Of course, we
> need to be careful here, if the Feds come to the conclusion that x hrs of
> re-current training results in x% reduction in GA accidents, we might find
> ourselves with additional FARs.  Luckily they typically move slowly and have
> plenty of other stuff to worry about or. perhaps that would be a good
> thing???
>
>
> An interesting discussion thread would be; "what are the factors that tend
> to discourage pilots from getting more recurrent training"?  Upon better
> understanding this, we can individually consider and address those causes
> and how they may effect our behavior.  We should all be concerned with this
> as it ultimately effects what we pay in insurance, the loss of friends &
> planes, and the public's perceptions of general aviation.
>
>
> I propose the reasons we (I) don't do more recurrent training is:
>
>
> *	Natural aversion to receiving critical feedback (even if
> constructive)
> *	Uncomfortable with potential realization that we are not as skilled
> as we think we are (simulated engine out practice - touchdown accuracy)
> *	Expense  (actually small relative to the overall cost of ownership
> and flying)
> *	Time  (I enjoy flying, so this should not really be a reason)
> *	The results/benefits of re-current training are not often directly
> observable or quantifiable
>
>
> Seems each of these is easily over-come-able with rational
> thinking/behavior.
>
>
> There is also the issue/concern of the quality/appropriateness of the
> training.  In addition to approaches flown during normal IFR flights, I do
> my required 6 approaches, holds, and course intercepts every 6 months (IFR
> currency) as separate flights/training.  I make it a point to do at least 6
> in the spring and 6 in the fall, in actual low IMC whenever possible (not
> possible in the winter in Mich due to icing).  However, I've always done
> those at YIP a large local airport (my local, really bad weather alternate).
> I've told myself this is good because I want to be able to land there under
> the worst of conditions (if necessary).  Now, after years of that, I'm
> pretty good at it - "turn me in at the marker and make it tight", partial
> panel, purposely out of trim, etc.
>
>
> Perhaps that's not the best bang for my buck anymore.  Perhaps, I should
> purposely go somewhere where I've never reviewed the approach chart, and
> don't look at it until after being cleared for the approach.  Perhaps I
> should do a few ASR approaches - haven't done any of those in years.
> Perhaps I should do some more IFR unusual-attitude work (dual with foggles).
> Perhaps I need to really rethink my personal approach to currency, practice,
> and training.  How real is it for me go out and practice engine out
> procedures, when I know that is what I am going to do ahead of time.  Better
> than nothing, but perhaps not the best way.
>
>
> Your thoughts???
>
>
> Rick Titsworth
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/
>
>