OK, Luke, Here's More Numbers for You

In a previous article, said:
[Actually, I (Paul Tomblin) wrote this part:]
We'll probably never really know the true answers, until somebody
makes a long term comprehensive study of hours flown and types of
flying versus accidents across the whole fleet.

I'm personally skeptical of this figure. I think if one could extract the
*equivalent* operations from the production-aircraft accidents...e.g, only
aircraft that were personally owned and operated (homebuilt can't be rented,
etc.), I think the comparative figures would be closer to the fleet rate.

That's what I was getting at when I said somebody needs to make a study of
"hours flown and types of flying". Is it more dangerous or less dangerous
to be doing $100 hamburger runs in homebuilts versus production aircraft?
How about IFR? How about night winter IFR?

You've done a good job with the information available, but the information
that could help somebody make an informed decision as to whether the type
of flying that they do is more or less dangerous in home-builts just isn't
there.

Personally, I am inclined to believe for normal droning along to a
destination flying, they're going to end up the same. Except for that
horrible spike in accident rates within the first 30 hours of flying a
homebuilt - it's that (and the fact that I can't stand for hours at a
time in the workshop like I did when I made my canoes) that keeps me away
from homebuilts.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Why are we hiding from the police, mommy?"
"Because we use vi, dear, and they use emacs."

"Jim Rosinski" wrote in message
oups.com...
jls wrote:

Still slow, Danny Boy, for all the fuel you're burnin'. Somebody in
FAST GLASS taxi by you smirking? Fast glass drivers laugh up their
sleeves while climbing out by your spamcan hanging there in a sort of
a hover, humiliating you, Danny?

I'd say "Danny Boy" has pretty well humiliated *you* in the ongoing war
of words between you two in this thread, hotshot. Evidently you need to
compensate--for something.

Jim Rosinski


Ah, another embarrassed and disgruntled 172 driver. Well, I gotta admit, I
have a 172 too, but mine hasn't been banged up as badly as yours. And I
drain the sump before I fly.

Let me repeat, experimental aircraft enjoy an enviable record. You get
from this what you will, but what I get from it, though it shows need for
improvement (and that experimentals are getting it) is good:
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/ARG0302.pdf

I am not flying an experimental at the moment. I have flown several which
were squirrelly and had demanding envelopes. Some are as docile as cubs.
I know people who buy and resell them and love them. I know people who
build and fly their own aircraft and are safe, respectable pilots with
beautiful airplanes. As the above article suggests comparing experimentals
to production aircraft may not be a valid exercise. If you and Danny want
to, have at it, but be fair. Safety records can always be improved, and the
record of experimentals is indeed improving. The FAA's DAR program and
other programs are making some progress:
http://www.airworthy.org/AWDAR.htm

Best luck to you and N3825Q.
(signed) Unhumbled Experimental Fan

I sorry George, Clarke who?


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


" wrote:

Are you talking about your 172RG? Do they really cruise at 155 MPH? I
thought they cruised around 145 MPH. Is yours modified?

According to Clarke's book, cruise for a 172RG at 75% power is 161 mph.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

jls wrote:

Ah, another embarrassed and disgruntled 172 driver. Well, I gotta
admit, I
have a 172 too, but mine hasn't been banged up as badly as yours.

So you own a 172? Anyone else in this ng I wouldn't think of asking for
verification of such a simple claim. But since it's you, considering
your various insane rantings and the fact that you're hiding behind
initials, I find myself saying: Prove it.

Jim Rosinski

" wrote:

I sorry George, Clarke who?

_The Illustrated Buyer's Guide to Used Airplanes_ - Bill Clarke.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

On 1 Jan 2005 15:46:19 -0800, "Jim Rosinski" wrote:

jls wrote:

Ah, another embarrassed and disgruntled 172 driver. Well, I gotta
admit, I
have a 172 too, but mine hasn't been banged up as badly as yours.

So you own a 172? Anyone else in this ng I wouldn't think of asking for
verification of such a simple claim. But since it's you, considering
your various insane rantings and the fact that you're hiding behind
initials, I find myself saying: Prove it.

Wouldn't want to post an N-Number, but my guess is that it's serial number
36034.

Is there a prize for this? :-)

Ron "Database Boy" Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

Wouldn't want to post an N-Number, but my guess is that it's serial
number
36034.

Is there a prize for this? :-)

Nah, no prize. I was just encouraging the 3-initial flame-meister to
stop hiding behind anonymity and tell us who he is. Folks who sign
their name tend to be less vitriolic, and in this case maybe stop
making stuff up about who likes what kind of airplane.

Jim Rosinski

On 1 Jan 2005 20:28:20 -0800, "Jim Rosinski" wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

Wouldn't want to post an N-Number, but my guess is that it's serial
number
36034.

Is there a prize for this? :-)

Nah, no prize. I was just encouraging the 3-initial flame-meister to
stop hiding behind anonymity and tell us who he is. Folks who sign
their name tend to be less vitriolic, and in this case maybe stop
making stuff up about who likes what kind of airplane.

Well, I cheated, 'cause I know his name from another newsgroup. Don't know for
sure if the above S/N 172 is his, but the registered owner A) has the same last
name, B) Has the same "JLS" initials, C) Has a middle name the same as JLS has
used as a first name on that other group, and D) is from the same state that I
recall JLS is from.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On 1 Jan 2005 20:28:20 -0800, "Jim Rosinski" wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

Wouldn't want to post an N-Number, but my guess is that it's serial
number
36034.

Is there a prize for this? :-)

Nah, no prize. I was just encouraging the 3-initial flame-meister to
stop hiding behind anonymity and tell us who he is. Folks who sign
their name tend to be less vitriolic, and in this case maybe stop
making stuff up about who likes what kind of airplane.

Well, I cheated, 'cause I know his name from another newsgroup. Don't
know for
sure if the above S/N 172 is his, but the registered owner A) has the same
last
name, B) Has the same "JLS" initials, C) Has a middle name the same as JLS
has
used as a first name on that other group, and D) is from the same state
that I
recall JLS is from.

Ron Wanttaja


Well, thanks, Ron, hint taken. No use in throwing gasoline on a fire to
quench it. If this group has no more crickets than one or two, then it's
healthy and vibrant and should be cultivated. Your gentlemanly demeanor, as
well as your eloquent ability to post helpful information, is appreciated.

We had a couple of 65-degree sunny days lately, suitable for open cockpits
and Fly Babies. So many airplanes, so little time.