Badwater Bill

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:51:57 +0900, Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:09:54 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

... but not only does it apparently feature a LOT of locks up forward, the
canopy should have been the first item to depart the airframe had it come open.
It would have been found with the personal items that came out.

Ron Wanttaja

it is tragic to see the number of people killed in lancairs.
canopies seem to have little to do with it.
the design seems so optimised for high speed flight that people
regularly come unstuck in the slow speed regime.

at one stage 50% of australian built lancairs had killed their
builders and passenger in slow speed flight fatal incidents.

tragic.
Stealth Pilot

I'm not doubting you but is that a pure cite or a guess. If a cite, then
Holy ****!

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:57:43 -0400, Gezellig
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:51:57 +0900, Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:09:54 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

... but not only does it apparently feature a LOT of locks up forward, the
canopy should have been the first item to depart the airframe had it come open.
It would have been found with the personal items that came out.

Ron Wanttaja

it is tragic to see the number of people killed in lancairs.
canopies seem to have little to do with it.
the design seems so optimised for high speed flight that people
regularly come unstuck in the slow speed regime.

at one stage 50% of australian built lancairs had killed their
builders and passenger in slow speed flight fatal incidents.

tragic.
Stealth Pilot

I'm not doubting you but is that a pure cite or a guess. If a cite, then
Holy ****!

that is a fact. sadly. it came up unexpectedly when an atsb chap was
grinding a spreadsheet on aircraft types to work out what were
inherently the safest designs.
sadly the lancair is at the very other end of the spectrum by a long
shot. ...in australia.

Stealth Pilot

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:57:43 -0400, Gezellig
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:51:57 +0900, Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:09:54 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

... but not only does it apparently feature a LOT of locks up forward,
the
canopy should have been the first item to depart the airframe had it
come open.
It would have been found with the personal items that came out.

Ron Wanttaja

it is tragic to see the number of people killed in lancairs.
canopies seem to have little to do with it.
the design seems so optimised for high speed flight that people
regularly come unstuck in the slow speed regime.

at one stage 50% of australian built lancairs had killed their
builders and passenger in slow speed flight fatal incidents.

tragic.
Stealth Pilot

I'm not doubting you but is that a pure cite or a guess. If a cite, then
Holy ****!

that is a fact. sadly. it came up unexpectedly when an atsb chap was
grinding a spreadsheet on aircraft types to work out what were
inherently the safest designs.
sadly the lancair is at the very other end of the spectrum by a long
shot. ...in australia.

Stealth Pilot

How many completed Lancairs, especally Legacies, were included?

Peter

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:02:22 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:57:43 -0400, Gezellig
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:51:57 +0900, Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:09:54 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

... but not only does it apparently feature a LOT of locks up forward,
the
canopy should have been the first item to depart the airframe had it
come open.
It would have been found with the personal items that came out.

Ron Wanttaja

it is tragic to see the number of people killed in lancairs.
canopies seem to have little to do with it.
the design seems so optimised for high speed flight that people
regularly come unstuck in the slow speed regime.

at one stage 50% of australian built lancairs had killed their
builders and passenger in slow speed flight fatal incidents.

tragic.
Stealth Pilot

I'm not doubting you but is that a pure cite or a guess. If a cite, then
Holy ****!

that is a fact. sadly. it came up unexpectedly when an atsb chap was
grinding a spreadsheet on aircraft types to work out what were
inherently the safest designs.
sadly the lancair is at the very other end of the spectrum by a long
shot. ...in australia.

Stealth Pilot

How many completed Lancairs, especally Legacies, were included?

Peter

And what would be next in the line of infamous, present day designs?

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:02:22 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:57:43 -0400, Gezellig
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:51:57 +0900, Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:09:54 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

... but not only does it apparently feature a LOT of locks up forward,
the
canopy should have been the first item to depart the airframe had it
come open.
It would have been found with the personal items that came out.

Ron Wanttaja

it is tragic to see the number of people killed in lancairs.
canopies seem to have little to do with it.
the design seems so optimised for high speed flight that people
regularly come unstuck in the slow speed regime.

at one stage 50% of australian built lancairs had killed their
builders and passenger in slow speed flight fatal incidents.

tragic.
Stealth Pilot

I'm not doubting you but is that a pure cite or a guess. If a cite, then
Holy ****!

that is a fact. sadly. it came up unexpectedly when an atsb chap was
grinding a spreadsheet on aircraft types to work out what were
inherently the safest designs.
sadly the lancair is at the very other end of the spectrum by a long
shot. ...in australia.

Stealth Pilot

How many completed Lancairs, especally Legacies, were included?

Peter

And what would be next in the line of infamous, present day designs?

My point is that, if at that time, two Lancair Legacies were flying in
Australia and one of them crashed; then that would have been a 50% loss.
However, it would have been a meaningless statistic--which, regrettably, is
not uncommon. Therefore, I have enquired as to whether the data was
statistically significant.

Peter

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:10:31 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:02:22 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:57:43 -0400, Gezellig
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:51:57 +0900, Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:09:54 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

... but not only does it apparently feature a LOT of locks up forward,
the
canopy should have been the first item to depart the airframe had it
come open.
It would have been found with the personal items that came out.

Ron Wanttaja

it is tragic to see the number of people killed in lancairs.
canopies seem to have little to do with it.
the design seems so optimised for high speed flight that people
regularly come unstuck in the slow speed regime.

at one stage 50% of australian built lancairs had killed their
builders and passenger in slow speed flight fatal incidents.

tragic.
Stealth Pilot

I'm not doubting you but is that a pure cite or a guess. If a cite, then
Holy ****!

that is a fact. sadly. it came up unexpectedly when an atsb chap was
grinding a spreadsheet on aircraft types to work out what were
inherently the safest designs.
sadly the lancair is at the very other end of the spectrum by a long
shot. ...in australia.

Stealth Pilot

How many completed Lancairs, especally Legacies, were included?

Peter

And what would be next in the line of infamous, present day designs?

My point is that, if at that time, two Lancair Legacies were flying in
Australia and one of them crashed; then that would have been a 50% loss.
However, it would have been a meaningless statistic--which, regrettably, is
not uncommon. Therefore, I have enquired as to whether the data was
statistically significant.

Peter

Agreed. My question is, whether or not the Lanc stats are significant,
are there other statistically significant sets of data that point to
"killer" design flaws.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:00:28 -0400, Gezellig
wrote:


at one stage 50% of australian built lancairs had killed their
builders and passenger in slow speed flight fatal incidents.

tragic.
Stealth Pilot

I'm not doubting you but is that a pure cite or a guess. If a cite, then
Holy ****!


How many completed Lancairs, especally Legacies, were included?


every australian aircraft. dont know the figure because the details
were related to me by the atsb guy himself. I never saw his
spreadsheet. probably 10 as a ballpark.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...ationStats.pdf

this link is a 375kb download which will show the fatality rates in
australia. it doesnt allow me to segregate figures by aircraft type.


Peter

And what would be next in the line of infamous, present day designs?

My point is that, if at that time, two Lancair Legacies were flying in
Australia and one of them crashed; then that would have been a 50% loss.
However, it would have been a meaningless statistic--which, regrettably, is
not uncommon. Therefore, I have enquired as to whether the data was
statistically significant.

Peter

Agreed. My question is, whether or not the Lanc stats are significant,
are there other statistically significant sets of data that point to
"killer" design flaws.

I think there were 5 or 6 or 7 fatalities. I dont have the figures.
for australia the figure was significant.

Stealth Pilot

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:10:31 -0400, "Peter Dohm" wrote:

My point is that, if at that time, two Lancair Legacies were flying in
Australia and one of them crashed; then that would have been a 50% loss.
However, it would have been a meaningless statistic--which, regrettably, is
not uncommon. Therefore, I have enquired as to whether the data was
statistically significant.

Yep. Several homebuilt types have similar annual US fleet accident rates as
Lancairs (examples: Velocity, RANS, Zenair) but the sample sizes vary so much
that one or two accidents more or less can make a real difference. I suspect the
Aussie fleet is quite a bit smaller.

We also have to consider our definition of "Lancair." Is it fair to lump a
Lancair Legacy with a Lancair IVP? Is it fair to lump a Lancair ES with the
original Lancair O-235 (which had a REALLY small tail)?

If you don't...then your sample size gets a lot smaller and your data is less
reliable. How many of those ten Lancairs in Australia were Legacies?

That said, the original two-seat Lancairs did have trouble getting certified in
Australia, way back when. They used to require flight testing of homebuilts
just like production aircraft, and the government test pilots rejected the
Lancair due to its handling qualities.

Ron Wanttaja