Lancair IV-P lost near Lansing MI

On 2 Jun 2004 20:26:52 -0700, (lowflyer) wrote:

(Badwater Bill) wrote in message ...


Most of the rich guys who buy them are
doctors, not test pilots. And, it's those weekend types that get
killed when the thing departs from it's normal flight characteristics.


You sound like the guy to answer a question I've had for a long time.
You know the old saw about doctors and Bonanzas. I've always wondered
if it was true. Now you state essentially the same about
Lancairs...it's doctors (of course they are richer than anyone else
who flies) who "fly them and get killed." Assuming you know what
you're talking about, what percent of Lancairs are owned by doctors,
and what percent of fatal Lancair accidents involve doctor pilots as
opposed to any other profession of pilot? Also, using any definition
of rich you wish, are doctor pilots any richer than lawyer pilots,
business man pilots,etc. I have no bone to pick here other than
wanting to know whether this stereotyping is justified. I won't know
unless you or anyone else can back it up with referenced statistics.

I've always interpreted the "doctor killer" tag as something that
refered generically to someone who has plenty of disposable income but
limited time, interest or motiviation to pusue proper training and to
maintain proficiency. I never took the term too literally. Doctors
are a convenient example of the genus. It's similar to soccer moms.
Not all soccer moms actually have kids playing soccer.
Rich Russell

"Richard Russell" wrote in message
...

On 2 Jun 2004 20:26:52 -0700, (lowflyer) wrote:

I've always interpreted the "doctor killer" tag as something that
refered generically to someone who has plenty of disposable income but
limited time, interest or motiviation to pusue proper training and to

Well as both a doctor and a CFII I will agree with that... there are good
and bad doctor pilots an the same is true of most other professions.

What I have noticed, however, in doing instruction with pilots who own high
performance airplanes is that one demographic factor which seems to put
pilots at risk is to have the money to fly a high performance airplane but
without a vocational background which requires regular self-study. The
generic prototype would be someone with a limited education who inherited a
lot of money. Sometimes these pilots can be mentored to begin a lifelong
process of reading/learning about aviation, but sometimes it is just foreign
to them and that pilot might do well in a routine flight situation but may
have difficulty working through an unanticipated problem.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

The whole money 'n doctors 'n Bonanzas thing makes a nice mantra, but it
totally ignores the most important factor in the equation...

True, many doctors have a high income level.

True, many doctors own expensive toys like Porches, Mercedes, Nikon cameras,
and other such things.

And a Bonanza is an expensive toy. But it does require a certain level of
skill to fly it.

Guess what else takes a certain level of skill? Sawing a man's chest open,
yanking out his heart, cutting the heart open, putting in a few valves,
sticking it back in his chest, and having the patient wake up good as new.

Yes, it takes skill, knowledge, and training. But it takes one more thing to
enable you to do something that could very well kill another human being:
balls! Or more correctly, it takes a very high level of self-confidence.

Some of us are born self-confident; some of us develop self-confidence. But
doctors, during their training, have self-confidence pounded into them.
Simply because a doctor cannot do his/her job without a high degree of
self-confidence.

Military jet-jockeys are also force-fed self-confidence, although many of
them come into the service with a high level. When the wheels come off the
runway that pilot is the best one in the air. But you see quite a few
accidents involving military or ex-military pilots. Why is that? "I can fly
an F-18, I can fly a stinking ultralight!"

I don't do sports, but from what I read, Thurman Munson was a very good
baseball player. It would be reasonable to believe that when he walked onto
the field he was self-confident in his ability to win ball games, and that
he was one of the best in the business. And I'm sure he had plenty of
self-confidence when he pushed the throttles forward on that Citation.
Unfortunately, once he pushed the throttles forward, self-esteem wasn't that
important any more; a different set of traits were needed.

There's an old joke:

Q: "What's the difference between God and a doctor?"

A: "God doesn't think he's a doctor!"

Take a Bonanza. Put a pilot in it, a pilot whose skills are somewhat below
those necessary to fly the aircraft to it's maximum capabilities. As long as
that pilot recognizes his limitations and flies the aircraft within his
limitations, he will probably come out O.K.

Take a Bonanza. Put a pilot in it, a pilot who one hour previously was
sewing somebody's heart closed...






"lowflyer" wrote in message
om...
(Badwater Bill) wrote in message
...


Most of the rich guys who buy them are
doctors, not test pilots. And, it's those weekend types that get
killed when the thing departs from it's normal flight characteristics.


You sound like the guy to answer a question I've had for a long time.
You know the old saw about doctors and Bonanzas. I've always wondered
if it was true. Now you state essentially the same about
Lancairs...it's doctors (of course they are richer than anyone else
who flies) who "fly them and get killed." Assuming you know what
you're talking about, what percent of Lancairs are owned by doctors,
and what percent of fatal Lancair accidents involve doctor pilots as
opposed to any other profession of pilot? Also, using any definition
of rich you wish, are doctor pilots any richer than lawyer pilots,
business man pilots,etc. I have no bone to pick here other than
wanting to know whether this stereotyping is justified. I won't know
unless you or anyone else can back it up with referenced statistics.

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...

Take a Bonanza. Put a pilot in it, a pilot who one hour previously was
sewing somebody's heart closed...

First of all, few doctors do work that is as dramatic as you say... probably
similar to the percentage of pilots who regularly do inverted flat spins.

Second of all, self-confidence is a TERRIFIC pilot attribute. The problem
only comes in when that self-confidence is not equally tempered with an
understanding of one's limitations. As for doctors, the concept of risk vs.
benefit is very well understood. The sports analogy does not hold.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:46:16 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
wrote:

Fuel exhaustion? Seems plausible.

Nah, there would have been a mayday call or something if they had just ran
out of gas.

Not necessarily... the pilot may not have known the actual fuel state,
depending on how accurate the gauges were or how well they were working at
the time of the accident. If the engine quit suddenly, things might have
happened too fast for a mayday.

The apparent lack of post-impact fire really argues for no fuel onboard.

The one article has a witness statement that I think could be telling:
"The plane appeared to be flying normally, flat, and then went up like it
was trying to go higher, went into a spiral and crashed into the ground."

Sounds to me like the pilot or passenger could have accidentally hit the
control stick, pitched the plane up suddenly and set her into a spin.
(assuming the witness is reliable).

Certainly a possibility, though it's not a common accident mode. It's
tough to accidentally pull a stick back hard, but it could have been
knocked forward and the pitch-up was from over-reaction. Seems a bit of a
reach, though.

You're certainly right about witness reliability. Back when the second
Wheeler Express prototype crashed on its way to Oshkosh, they had an
eyewitness on the local news. The guy said that the plane "fluttered down,
definitely NOT in a spin." And, of course, the plane WAS in a spin...it's
just that the non-pilot observer didn't recognize it.

Let's see what the NTSB preliminary has to say...

Ron Wanttaja

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:26:46 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:46:16 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
wrote:

Fuel exhaustion? Seems plausible.

Nah, there would have been a mayday call or something if they had just ran
out of gas.

Not necessarily... the pilot may not have known the actual fuel state,
depending on how accurate the gauges were or how well they were working at
the time of the accident. If the engine quit suddenly, things might have
happened too fast for a mayday.

The apparent lack of post-impact fire really argues for no fuel onboard.

True, but one witness said he heard the what sounded like high RPM, or
something to that effect. That and they were only about 15 minutes
out from the start of a very long cross country. (The first 50 miles
of a 1000 mile trip)


The one article has a witness statement that I think could be telling:
"The plane appeared to be flying normally, flat, and then went up like it
was trying to go higher, went into a spiral and crashed into the ground."

Sounds to me like the pilot or passenger could have accidentally hit the
control stick, pitched the plane up suddenly and set her into a spin.
(assuming the witness is reliable).

Lots of things could have happened and at this point it is all
speculation. Control failure, Pilot problem, They had apparently
gone through some heavier weather at the start of the flight, but
again that is at least second or third hand. If they got that plastic
airplane in hail, or a thunderstorm, again lots of things can happen.
Even a piece of heavy baggage coming loose


Certainly a possibility, though it's not a common accident mode. It's
tough to accidentally pull a stick back hard, but it could have been
knocked forward and the pitch-up was from over-reaction. Seems a bit of a
reach, though.

Side stick in the IV-P. I don't remember if it's a joy stick, or true
side stick. I flew a Cozy that had a joystick just like a video game
and it was a joy to fly. I found I don't like the side sticks like
the Cirrus uses.


You're certainly right about witness reliability. Back when the second
Wheeler Express prototype crashed on its way to Oshkosh, they had an
eyewitness on the local news. The guy said that the plane "fluttered down,
definitely NOT in a spin." And, of course, the plane WAS in a spin...it's
just that the non-pilot observer didn't recognize it.

Let's see what the NTSB preliminary has to say...

From the photos the parts are all pretty much in the same spot, just
not attached and in pretty poor shape.

And as you say... Let's see what the NTSB has to say.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com



Ron Wanttaja

Wondering if there is anywhere besides the NTSB's website where the
crash findings are published. I realize it will be a year, but I
checked the website, and the most recent published report published is
on an accident that happened on 8/10/2001. One of the passengers
(Roger Hertz) was a good friend, and obviously, I'd like to find out
what happened.
Thanks all.
Alan
VE3FCJ

Roger Halstead wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:26:46 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:46:16 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
wrote:

Fuel exhaustion? Seems plausible.

Nah, there would have been a mayday call or something if they had just ran
out of gas.

Not necessarily... the pilot may not have known the actual fuel state,
depending on how accurate the gauges were or how well they were working at
the time of the accident. If the engine quit suddenly, things might have
happened too fast for a mayday.

The apparent lack of post-impact fire really argues for no fuel onboard.

True, but one witness said he heard the what sounded like high RPM, or
something to that effect. That and they were only about 15 minutes
out from the start of a very long cross country. (The first 50 miles
of a 1000 mile trip)


The one article has a witness statement that I think could be telling:
"The plane appeared to be flying normally, flat, and then went up like it
was trying to go higher, went into a spiral and crashed into the ground."

Sounds to me like the pilot or passenger could have accidentally hit the
control stick, pitched the plane up suddenly and set her into a spin.
(assuming the witness is reliable).

Lots of things could have happened and at this point it is all
speculation. Control failure, Pilot problem, They had apparently
gone through some heavier weather at the start of the flight, but
again that is at least second or third hand. If they got that plastic
airplane in hail, or a thunderstorm, again lots of things can happen.
Even a piece of heavy baggage coming loose


Certainly a possibility, though it's not a common accident mode. It's
tough to accidentally pull a stick back hard, but it could have been
knocked forward and the pitch-up was from over-reaction. Seems a bit of a
reach, though.

Side stick in the IV-P. I don't remember if it's a joy stick, or true
side stick. I flew a Cozy that had a joystick just like a video game
and it was a joy to fly. I found I don't like the side sticks like
the Cirrus uses.


You're certainly right about witness reliability. Back when the second
Wheeler Express prototype crashed on its way to Oshkosh, they had an
eyewitness on the local news. The guy said that the plane "fluttered down,
definitely NOT in a spin." And, of course, the plane WAS in a spin...it's
just that the non-pilot observer didn't recognize it.

Let's see what the NTSB preliminary has to say...

From the photos the parts are all pretty much in the same spot, just
not attached and in pretty poor shape.

And as you say... Let's see what the NTSB has to say.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com



Ron Wanttaja

All you people who feel you have to say something on every topic no matter
how little you really know about it make me sick!

Most of you have never even seen the inside of a Lancair, and your
speculations are just repeats of stuff that has been floating around on the
net for a long time.

This particular accident, was weather-related, not Lancair-related. Read
the NTSB preliminary.

Here is a quote from the NTSB:
"Aircraft radar track data was obtained from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Grand Rapids Approach Control facility. The track data
was plotted on a weather radar chart that depicted areas of precipitation
and their corresponding intensities. The plotted data showed N707SH
traveling into an area of level six precipitation prior to a rapid loss of
altitude. The aircraft entered the region of level six radar returns at
12,000 feet and the last radar return was at 2,000 feet approximately 1-1/2
minutes later."

Level 6 is the highest classification of precipitation, described as
"extreme, more than 5" per hour.

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...04X00740&key=1