TRAIN OR DIE here it is again, again PART 2

Submitted by Anonymous on

Forums: 

From: PETER WILLIAMS <peterpawaviation [at] hotmail.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: TRAIN OR DIE here it is again, again PART 2
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 07:59:42 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
PART II

People who knew Steve noted that he was a risk taker with active
hobbies such as scuba diving, surfing, motorcycling, and off-road car
racing. These are not inherently dangerous per se, but it’s not a Bingo
game or bird watching. He seriously injured himself and totaled an Extra
300 when the ground intervened at the bottom of a loop. That brush with
mortality might have encouraged a more conservative approach—but
apparently it did not.
[EVEN A HIGHLY EXPERIENCED PILOT]
Steve was a highly experienced pilot with an estimated 3,600 hours
total time, including a fair amount in turbine aircraft but only about
13 hours in the turbine IV-TP. He resisted getting transition training
in the IV-TP.

There’s a strong case to be made for transition training. Pilots
involved in accidents generally have less experience in make and model,
often despite high total time.

AND I ONLY CAN WISH

The NTSB noted that the FAA had issued a warning letter to operators in
2009:

“The notice indicated that while Lancairs represented a little
over 3 percent of the amateur-built experimental aircraft fleet, they
contributed to 16 percent of all amateur-built fatal aircraft accidents
in the prior 11 months…”

Let me point out Lancair is not the only high
performance experimental aircraft with aggressive stall characteristics.
The FAA had also proposed a special training requirement as has been
done on several other aircraft that had relatively high accident
involvements. That has yet to be enacted.


by  AOPA

TRAIN OR DIE here it is again, again PART 2

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: George Wehrung <gw5 [at] me.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] TRAIN OR DIE here it is again, again PART 2
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:45:08 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
I know it's generally considered ill to speak of the dead, however in the interest if aviation safety, it's the only way we can move forward. 

When I mull this one over I can only think of a few likely excuses one might come up with to not take transition training. 

No time? Not a very good excuse and one that I can't fathom a reason. 

Money?  If one can afford to purchase and operate this plane, they should be able to afford the transition training. Aviation is expensive and it's no place to be frugal. 

Arrogance, Ignorance and Hubris. I believe as pilots we all exhibit some portion of all three of these personality or behavioral traits.  For most of they manifest themselves as confidence and or swagger in our step. 
Sometimes they may negatively appear in a crewed environment where two large egos have a tough time fitting into the cockpit. 

Generally we keep these in check by receiving evaluations of our piloting skills with training and check rides. 

Just a few random thoughts

George



Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 23, 2014, at 7:59, PETER WILLIAMS <peterpawaviation [at] hotmail.com

> wrote:

PART II

People who knew Steve noted that he was a risk taker with active
hobbies such as scuba diving, surfing, motorcycling, and off-road car
racing. These are not inherently dangerous per se, but it’s not a Bingo
game or bird watching. He seriously injured himself and totaled an Extra
300 when the ground intervened at the bottom of a loop. That brush with
mortality might have encouraged a more conservative approach—but
apparently it did not.
[EVEN A HIGHLY EXPERIENCED PILOT]
Steve was a highly experienced pilot with an estimated 3,600 hours
total time, including a fair amount in turbine aircraft but only about
13 hours in the turbine IV-TP. He resisted getting transition training
in the IV-TP.

There’s a strong case to be made for transition training. Pilots
involved in accidents generally have less experience in make and model,
often despite high total time.

AND I ONLY CAN WISH

The NTSB noted that the FAA had issued a warning letter to operators in
2009:

“The notice indicated that while Lancairs represented a little
over 3 percent of the amateur-built experimental aircraft fleet, they
contributed to 16 percent of all amateur-built fatal aircraft accidents
in the prior 11 months…”

Let me point out Lancair is not the only high
performance experimental aircraft with aggressive stall characteristics.
The FAA had also proposed a special training requirement as has been
done on several other aircraft that had relatively high accident
involvements. That has yet to be enacted.


by  AOPA