X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 18:28:55 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [64.12.137.3] (HELO imo-m22.mail.aol.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 1111122 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 12 May 2006 17:41:21 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.3; envelope-from=VTAILJEFF@aol.com Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-m22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.5.) id q.3d7.2863752 (29673) for ; Fri, 12 May 2006 17:40:31 -0400 (EDT) From: VTAILJEFF@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <3d7.2863752.31965acf@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 17:40:31 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: IVP Crash X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1147470031" X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5026 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1147470031 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/12/2006 7:24:56 AM Central Standard Time, marv@lancaironline.net writes: A safer Lancair "record"? I would think that - by now - it would be obvious that what is needed is a safer "Lancair." We all know that Lancairs are neat planes, but they are also very hot to fly, with virtually no allowable margin for error. One only has to look at the statistics and the independent research to know it is an issue with the plane. In fairness, this is not unique to Lancairs... Rienk, In all "fairness" the statistics and independent research do not support your claim that the Lancair safety record is related to aircraft issues. Quite the contrary. The pilots are about 80% of the problem-- and I have done the independent analysis. The airplanes are high performance aircraft, just like the one you are developing, and take skills beyond the average private pilot level. In all "fairness" you should disclose that you are developing the "Envoy". A single engine turbo prop aircraft at Sreya Aviation. _http://www.sreyaaviation.com/envoy/main.html_ (http://www.sreyaaviation.com/envoy/main.html) Regards, Jeff Edwards LIVP N619SJ -------------------------------1147470031 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 5/12/2006 7:24:56 AM Central Standard Time,=20 marv@lancaironline.net writes:

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>A safer=20 Lancair "record"?
I would think that - by now - it would be obvi= ous=20 that what is needed is a
safer "Lancair." We all know that Lanca= irs=20 are neat planes, but they are
also very hot to fly, with virtual= ly=20 no allowable margin for error.
One only has to look at the=20 statistics and the independent research to know
it is an issue w= ith=20 the plane. In fairness, this is not unique to
Lancairs...=20

Rienk,

In all "fairness" the statistics and independent research do not suppor= t=20 your claim that the Lancair safety record is related to aircraft issues. Qui= te=20 the contrary. The pilots are about 80% of the problem-- and I have done the=20 independent analysis. The airplanes are high performance aircraft, just like= the=20 one you are developing, and take skills beyond the average private pilot=20 level.

In all "fairness" you should disclose that you are developing the "Envo= y".=20 A single engine turbo prop aircraft at Sreya Aviation. http://www.sreyaaviati= on.com/envoy/main.html

Regards,

Jeff Edwards

LIVP N619SJ

-------------------------------1147470031--