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/