X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 11:48:16 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from gypsy.chameleonengineering.com ([66.197.155.165] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTPS id 1112693 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 14 May 2006 02:48:08 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.197.155.165; envelope-from=rienk.ayers@sreyaaviation.com Received: from pool-71-102-241-246.snloca.dsl-w.verizon.net ([71.102.241.246] helo=Rienklaptop1) by gypsy.chameleonengineering.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1FfANj-0004U6-FW for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 14 May 2006 02:47:14 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Rienk Ayers" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: IVP Crash X-Original-Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 23:47:02 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <004e01c67722$39d59590$6501a8c0@Rienklaptop1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004F_01C676E7.8D76BD90" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 In-reply-to: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Importance: Normal X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gypsy.chameleonengineering.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lancaironline.net X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - sreyaaviation.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004F_01C676E7.8D76BD90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am intrigued to see the responses to my earlier post about the safety = of the Lancairs.=20 In no way do I mean to offend anyone, or besmirch the memory of anyone's friend and fellow pilot. Nor do I intend to demean Lancair - one of the most popular and successful family of experimental aircraft. They say = that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the Envoy is a direct tribute to both the Lancair and the TBM700. =20 However, I will respond first to Jeff's comments about the "fairness" of = my post, and Matt's assertion of commercial bias. I do not dispute that the vast majority of incidents/accidents are pilot induced... I am, however, asserting that many are exasperated by control and stability = deficiencies of the airplane.=20 I have already posted in the past that I am part of developing the = Envoy, beside which the email address I use for posting on the LML (of the six = I have, for various businesses) shows my commercial association - from = which I am obviously not trying to hide. And Mr. Wasti's judgments that I am too dishonest to say so, and too stupid to figure out I'd get caught? = Really, this is getting childish.=20 I stated that I have no current involvement with the Phoenix, which has nothing to do with the Envoy - why would I mention the one when I was referring to the other? Beside the Envoy, I have commercial interests in other ventures, including aviation. Frankly, I saw no need to disclose = this - again.=20 =20 I flew up to Skapoose this morning to meet Chuck at Composites = Unlimited, to discuss the Envoy and other projects that we are both interested in. I = went with the developers of the Phoenix - which I think is an excellent = concept. I stated that I am not involved in that project (though I would like to = be), hoping to defuse any concerns of bias. If I had compared the Envoy, I = would obviously have stated my involvement... I really am not that stupid... I have become successful by being fair and honest, regardless of what some rather judgmental people may say. I don't mind if people say I'm biased = (I am) and that I don't know what I'm talking about (though I hope I do), = but it does bother me when people besmirch my integrity. I may be = misinformed, opinionated, obstinate, ignorant, and brash, but I strive to be honest. =20 To return to the point, my involvement with the Envoy does not = automatically establish a bias or a hidden agenda. I have flown both a Lancair and a Columbia, and have owned many planes (from a C150 to a KA200, and many = in between). Frankly, any one who is honest with themselves will admit that = - barring truly terrible planes - almost every pilot is biased toward the planes they love and/or fly - regardless of it's handling and flight characteristics... especially in the experimental category; it is very difficult for someone who has possibly put years of effort into building = a plane to realize/admit it isn't what was expected (and I speak from = personal experience regarding several different experimental planes, which I = won't name here).=20 =20 And since I just noticed Mr. Sletten's comments, I will respond - but = not in kind; rather I will simply say that such comments don't help solve any problems, but rather tend to intimidate people who are interested in the truth. Like Mr. Cowell, Mr. Bartell's comments on the other hand, show = his professionalism and concern for the Lancair community, and the flying community in general. However, I will take exception with some of his points. Prior to his involvement with Lancair, there were a number of incidents and accidents - particularly in landing - that the company = blamed on the customers/pilots and their skills. It is my understanding, = however, after some "independent" testing, it became clear that in fact the tail = was too small for directional and pitch stability, and the surfaces were = later changed - for the better. I'm sure many of you have seen the recent = video of the Turbine 4P having a gear collapse during run-up... a potential indication of insufficient design margin. I have even had conversations = in the past with MH in which he brags about the initial Lancair designs = being 'just' sufficient to handle the potential loads (referring to there = being no unnecessary/excess weight). Do I really need to go through all of the examples to justify concerns over the Lancair's structural or stability margins? =20 Since I am involved with the development of a new aircraft, I have = learned first hand that static and dynamic stability are 'critical' to having a "safe" flying airplane, let alone a good handling craft. Please forgive = the idiocy that Mr. Sletten accuses me of, but there seem to be many = instances of extremely qualified test pilots who have lost aircraft (or their = lives) due to control and stability issues in what were presumably considered = well designed/built airplanes - and not just those operating outside of their "design envelope." Granted, pilot error may have been the only factor involved in the accident that this thread was started from, but that = does not then mean that the Lancair is (or is not) on the safe side of the spectrum. =20 In fact, the Envoy is a case in point. We have professional engineers = who designed and developed the Envoy; but when we brought in additional engineers and test pilots to review the numbers, we discovered that = there was an oversight made regarding the stability and control derivatives. = Thus, we decided to make changes to the design, even though that means some expensive re-tooling and delays. Could pilots fly the Envoy as it was... = "if you fly by the numbers" and it is not "flown out of [its] design = envelope"? Of course... but I would not sleep well at night (nor would my lawyers = and insurance companies) if people were killed due in any part to anything = that I could reasonably prevent in the design process: I am not willing to = live with the false premise that "there is no such thing as a safe airplane." = Ask any test pilot if there is a plane they would never test (or continue to test) because of safety issues; I would give good odds that the vast majority would be due to stability or control issues. I bet there is not = one of us who hasn't said "I would never fly" certain planes... some because = we may not be good enough pilots... but most because we don't consider them "safe." =20 Any qualified aeronautical engineer and/or test pilot will know = magnitudes more than I about stability and control derivatives (derivatives are mathematically defined, and though targets may be subjective, the = numbers are not). But I know at least this much: it is not difficult to = determine if an aircraft is stable or unstable. And if a design is unstable, it = should not be built or flown. Generally the more stable the plane, the easier = it is to fly, and likewise the "safer" it is (with no disrespect to Mr. = Webster's definition quoted to me, my off-the-cuff definition is that the airplane which allows the most pilots - independent of logged hours or natural = talent - to fly said plane with the least likelihood of incident or accident - = is by definition the safest). Thus, by my definition, a C172 is probably "safer" than a Comanche (the two planes I trained in), though each are capable flying machines in their own right. I guarantee that a C206 is = safer than a CA-6 (Compair), though I chose to build the CA-6 for other = reasons. Likewise, everyone who owns or flies a Lancair has (hopefully) = determined that they can safely fly the aircraft. But like any aircraft design, = that is unfortunately not always true. Mr. Bartell's comment is valid, that a = poor decision on the part of a pilot is not the aircraft's fault, but it = seems apparent to me that there are plenty of planes that - if put in the = exact same scenario - would not have had anywhere near the same drastic = results (in fairness, their are also very many planes that would have the exact = same result, and the Envoy could be one of them). =20 Now, before any more of you start printing sentiments like Mr. Sletten's regarding my comments, please let me finish my point. Yes, I know and understand (really I do) that designing an aircraft is a series of compromises, and that is why almost no two designs are alike, and there = are no perfect airplanes. Yes, I do appreciate that a C172 is not built with = the same design parameters as a Lancair, nor a Lancair as with a Citation = Jet. Otherwise, there would be no need to develop new planes with different missions - such as the Envoy (my wife and others might say, there is no = need regardless!). Therefore, I understand that we can't reasonably expect = the same goals from each plane (performance in particular). However, I will stick my neck out by saying that - regardless of the performance = parameters of a given "general aviation" aircraft, stability numbers (and therefore some level of safety) can always be determined, and the design can = always be modified as needed to fit within reasonably accepted parameters. The = problem is, most experimental aircraft developers don't - due to lack of = knowledge or funds. =20 There really is a reason that the FAA requires certified planes to = behave certain ways - and the military requires derivatives to be within = specific ranges. Of course, the beauty of experimental/home-built aircraft is the freedom to push the boundaries, and do what the name implies, = "experiment." However, it is only out of ignorance, or carelessness, or even "juvenile disregard or criminal intent" - that a designer or company would ignore = the stability and control derivatives, the knowledge and adjustment of = which, can make ANY plane safer (and I will be so brash as to say again, this = is probably one of the reasons why the Columbia had so much trouble getting certified... only the test pilots and the company can say for sure). =20 I will be the first to admit that I don't know with certainty whether = the control derivatives for the Lancair were ever determined - and if so - = if the design was modified (if needed) to correct them for a "safer" = aircraft. Thus, along with Mr. Cowell, I challenge anyone who truly knows, to not = only say so, but to let everyone know what those numbers are. It would seem = that Mr. Bartell would know - at least for the planes that have been = introduced since the start of his tenure. Some of you may think that this is meaningless mumbo-jumbo, but there are plenty of extremely knowledgeable people on this list who know and appreciate the meaning and importance = of this subject. I encourage everyone to ask them to verify this. =20 I know first-hand how disheartening it is to want to develop my version = of "the ideal airplane", only to find out that it will take longer and cost more to do so. Should the Envoy have commercial success, odds are that = there will be incidents/accidents involving the plane. Thus, I assume that Mr. Bartell and the Lancair team agree with me - it is better to do things = right and learn from our mistakes, than to stick our heads in the sand = ignoring problems, or using subterfuge to deal with real (and life threatening) issues. Lancair has a loyal following, and I myself believe that the = planes are exhilarating. However, I know that I myself am not (yet) a good = enough pilot to safely fly them. But knowing what I know now, I would never do = so without first knowing those all-important, behind the scenes numbers, = called derivatives. (and yes, when they are available for the Envoy, we will = make them known). =20 I have learned a lot from all those who have done so much already for = the aviation community - from both successes and failures. From building a = Cubby in high school to owning a KA200 to developing the Envoy and other = aircraft, and everything in-between, I am indebted to companies such as Lancair, = Vans, and many others. But knowing what I do, I am always concerned when an airplane goes down and a soul is lost; and like most of you, would like = to know all the reasons why. Even if this particular tragedy had nothing to do with the aircraft = itself, our current delay with the Envoy makes me hope that all companies - = whether new or established - will continue striving to keep experimental = aviation as "safe" as possible. Frankly, doing so is an expensive proposition, but = the price will be paid... either by the company in designing excellent = aircraft, or by the customers who will end up with expensive but inadequate = machines, and which ultimately may cost lives. I repeat this, not to downplay or dismiss proper and ongoing training, but to reiterate that we "in the business" have a professional and moral obligation to protect those who = are placing their trust (and lives) in us. =20 In conclusion - decide for yourselves. As Mr. Cowell so aptly said, "... = If the assertions are valid, or even partially valid, then the affected = Lancair pilots owe him a debt of gratitude for bringing this situation to light. = If, on the other hand, the assertions are found to be wanting either in specificity, fact, completeness or other significant category, that = would be beneficial for all of us - not the least of whom is Mr. Ayers -- to know = and understand as well." =20 To those who gave me the benefit of the doubt, I thank you. To those who = are so quick to judge, you are of course free to express your opinion, but please try to do so in a more considerate manner. I am willing to learn, and be corrected. I want to know and = understand... I look forward to your help. =20 RA =20 =20 =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of VTAILJEFF@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 3:29 PM To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: [LML] Re: IVP Crash 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...=20 Rienk,=20 =20 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. =20 In all "fairness" you should disclose that you are developing the = "Envoy". A single engine turbo prop aircraft at Sreya Aviation. HYPERLINK "http://www.sreyaaviation.com/envoy/main.html"http://www.sreyaaviation.co= m/e nvoy/main.html =20 Regards, =20 Jeff Edwards LIVP N619SJ =20 --=20 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/338 - Release Date: 5/12/2006 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_004F_01C676E7.8D76BD90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
I am intrigued to see the = responses to my=20 earlier post about the safety of the Lancairs.
In no way do I mean to offend = anyone, or=20 besmirch the memory of anyone's friend and fellow pilot. Nor do I intend = to=20 demean Lancair -  one of the most popular and successful = family of=20 experimental aircraft. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of=20 flattery, and the Envoy is a direct tribute to both the Lancair and = the=20 TBM700.
 
However, I will respond first to = Jeff's=20 comments about the "fairness" of my post, and Matt's assertion of=20 commercial bias. I do not dispute that the vast majority of = incidents/accidents=20 are pilot induced... I am, however, asserting that many are exasperated = by=20 control and stability deficiencies of the airplane.
I have already posted in the = past that=20 I am part of developing the Envoy, beside which the email = address I=20 use for posting on the LML (of the six I have, for various = businesses)=20 shows my commercial association - from which I am obviously not trying = to hide.=20 And Mr. Wasti's judgments that I am too dishonest to say so, and too = stupid to=20 figure out I'd get caught? Really, this is getting childish. =
I stated that I have no current = involvement=20 with the Phoenix, which has nothing to do with the Envoy - why would I = mention=20 the one when I was referring to the other? Beside the Envoy, I have = commercial=20 interests in other ventures, including aviation. Frankly, I saw no need = to=20 disclose this - again.
 
I flew up to Skapoose this morning = to meet=20 Chuck at Composites Unlimited, to discuss the Envoy and other projects = that we=20 are both interested in. I went with the developers of the Phoenix - = which I=20 think is an excellent concept. I stated that I am not involved in that = project=20 (though I would like to be), hoping to defuse any concerns of bias. If I = had=20 compared the Envoy, I would obviously have stated my involvement... I = really am=20 not that stupid... I have become successful by being fair and honest, = regardless=20 of what some rather judgmental people may say. I don't mind if people = say I'm=20 biased (I am) and that I don't know what I'm talking about (though I = hope I do),=20 but it does bother me when people besmirch my integrity. I may be = misinformed,=20 opinionated, obstinate, ignorant, and brash, but I strive to be=20 honest.
 
To return to the point, my = involvement with=20 the Envoy does not automatically establish a bias or a hidden = agenda. I=20 have flown both a Lancair and a Columbia, and have owned many = planes (from=20 a C150 to a KA200, and many in between). Frankly, any one who is honest = with=20 themselves will admit that - barring truly terrible planes - almost = every pilot=20 is biased toward the planes they love and/or fly - regardless of it's = handling=20 and flight characteristics... especially in the experimental category; = it is=20 very difficult for someone who has possibly put years of effort into = building a=20 plane to realize/admit it isn't what was expected (and I speak from = personal=20 experience regarding several different experimental planes, which I = won't name=20 here).
 
And since I just noticed Mr. = Sletten's=20 comments, I will respond - but not in kind; rather I will simply = say that=20 such comments don't help solve any problems, but rather tend to = intimidate=20 people who are interested in the truth. Like Mr. Cowell, Mr. Bartell's = comments=20 on the other hand, show his professionalism and concern for the Lancair=20 community, and the flying community in general. However, I will take = exception=20 with some of his points. Prior to his involvement with Lancair, there = were a=20 number of incidents and accidents - particularly in landing - that the = company=20 blamed on the customers/pilots and their skills. It is my understanding, = however, after some "independent" testing, it became clear that in fact = the tail=20 was too small for directional and pitch stability, and the surfaces were = later=20 changed - for the better. I'm sure many of you have seen the recent = video of the=20 Turbine 4P having a gear collapse during run-up... a potential = indication of=20 insufficient design margin. I have even had conversations in the past = with MH in=20 which he brags about the initial Lancair designs being 'just' sufficient = to=20 handle the potential loads (referring to there being no = unnecessary/excess=20 weight). Do I really need to go through all of the examples to justify = concerns=20 over the Lancair's structural or stability margins?
 
Since I am involved with the=20 development of a new aircraft, I have learned first hand that static and = dynamic=20 stability are 'critical' to having a "safe" flying airplane, let alone a = good=20 handling craft. Please forgive the idiocy that Mr. Sletten accuses me = of, but=20 there seem to be many instances of extremely qualified test pilots who = have lost=20 aircraft (or their lives) due to control and stability issues in what = were=20 presumably considered well designed/built airplanes - and not just those = operating outside of their "design envelope." Granted, pilot error may = have been=20 the only factor involved in the accident that this thread was started = from, but=20 that does not then mean that the Lancair is (or is not) on the safe side = of the=20 spectrum.
 
In fact, the Envoy is a case in = point. We=20 have professional engineers who designed and developed the Envoy; but = when we=20 brought in additional engineers and test pilots to review the numbers, = we=20 discovered that there was an oversight made regarding the stability = and=20 control derivatives. Thus, we decided to make changes to the design, = even though=20 that means some expensive re-tooling and delays. Could pilots fly the = Envoy as=20 it was... "if you fly by the numbers" and it is not "flown out of [its] = design=20 envelope"? Of course... but I would not sleep well at night (nor would = my=20 lawyers and insurance companies) if people were killed due in any part = to=20 anything that I could reasonably prevent in the design process: I am not = willing=20 to live with the false premise that "there is no such thing as a safe = airplane."=20 Ask any test pilot if there is a plane they would never test (or = continue to=20 test) because of safety issues; I would give good odds that the vast = majority=20 would be due to stability or control issues. I bet there is not one of = us who=20 hasn't said "I would never fly" certain planes... some because we may = not be=20 good enough pilots... but most because we don't consider them=20 "safe."
 
Any qualified aeronautical = engineer and/or=20 test pilot will know magnitudes more than I about stability and control=20 derivatives (derivatives are mathematically defined, and though targets = may be=20 subjective, the numbers are not). But I know at least this much: it is = not=20 difficult to determine if an aircraft is stable or unstable. And if a = design is=20 unstable, it should not be built or flown. Generally the more stable the = plane,=20 the easier it is to fly, and likewise the "safer" it is (with no = disrespect to=20 Mr. Webster's definition quoted to me, my off-the-cuff definition is = that the=20 airplane which allows the most pilots - independent of logged hours or = natural=20 talent - to fly said plane with the least likelihood of incident or = accident -=20 is by definition the safest). Thus, by my definition, a C172 is probably = "safer"=20 than a Comanche (the two planes I trained in), though each are capable = flying=20 machines in their own right. I guarantee that a C206 is safer than a = CA-6=20 (Compair), though I chose to build the CA-6 for other reasons. Likewise, = everyone who owns or flies a Lancair has (hopefully) determined that = they can=20 safely fly the aircraft. But like any aircraft design, that is = unfortunately not=20 always true. Mr. Bartell's comment is valid, that a poor decision on the = part of=20 a pilot is not the aircraft's fault, but it seems apparent to me that = there are=20 plenty of planes that - if put in the exact same scenario - would not = have had=20 anywhere near the same drastic results (in fairness, their are also very = many=20 planes that would have the exact same result, and the Envoy could be one = of=20 them).
 
Now, before any more of you start = printing=20 sentiments like Mr. Sletten's regarding my comments, please let me = finish my=20 point. Yes, I know and understand (really I do) that designing an = aircraft is a=20 series of compromises, and that is why almost no two designs are alike, = and=20 there are no perfect airplanes. Yes, I do appreciate that a C172 is not = built=20 with the same design parameters as a Lancair, nor a Lancair as with = a=20 Citation Jet. Otherwise, there would be no need to develop new planes = with=20 different missions - such as the Envoy (my wife and others might say, = there is=20 no need regardless!). Therefore, I understand that we can't reasonably = expect=20 the same goals from each plane (performance in particular). However, I = will=20 stick my neck out by saying that - regardless of the performance = parameters of a=20 given "general aviation" aircraft, stability numbers (and therefore some = level=20 of safety) can always be determined, and the design can always=20 be modified as needed to fit within reasonably accepted parameters. = The=20 problem is, most experimental aircraft developers don't - due to lack of = knowledge or funds.
 
There really is a reason that the = FAA=20 requires certified planes to behave certain ways - and the military = requires=20 derivatives to be within specific ranges. Of course, the beauty of=20 experimental/home-built aircraft is the freedom to push the boundaries, = and do=20 what the name implies, "experiment." However, it is only out of = ignorance, or=20 carelessness, or even "juvenile disregard or criminal intent" - that a = designer=20 or company would ignore the stability and control derivatives, the = knowledge and=20 adjustment of which, can make ANY plane safer (and I will be so = brash as to=20 say again, this is probably one of the reasons why the Columbia had so = much=20 trouble getting certified... only the test pilots and the company can = say for=20 sure).
 
I will be the first to admit that = I don't=20 know with certainty whether the control derivatives for the Lancair were = ever=20 determined - and if so - if the design was modified (if needed) to = correct them=20 for a "safer" aircraft. Thus, along with Mr. Cowell, I challenge anyone = who=20 truly knows, to not only say so, but to let everyone know what = those=20 numbers are. It would seem that Mr. Bartell would know - at least for = the planes=20 that have been introduced since the start of his tenure. Some of you may = think=20 that this is meaningless mumbo-jumbo, but there are plenty of extremely=20 knowledgeable people on this list who know and appreciate the meaning = and=20 importance of this subject. I encourage everyone to ask them to verify=20 this.
 
I know first-hand how = disheartening it is to=20 want to develop my version of "the ideal airplane", only to find out = that it=20 will take longer and cost more to do so. Should the Envoy have = commercial=20 success, odds are that there will be incidents/accidents involving the = plane.=20 Thus, I assume that Mr. Bartell and the Lancair team agree with me = - it is=20 better to do things right and learn from our mistakes, than to stick our = heads=20 in the sand ignoring problems, or using subterfuge to deal with real = (and life=20 threatening) issues. Lancair has a loyal following, and I myself believe = that=20 the planes are exhilarating. However, I know that I myself am not (yet) = a good=20 enough pilot to safely fly them. But knowing what I know now, I would = never do=20 so without first knowing those all-important, behind the scenes numbers, = called=20 derivatives. (and yes, when they are available for the Envoy, we will = make them=20 known).
 
I have learned a lot from all = those who have=20 done so much already for the aviation community - from both successes = and=20 failures. From building a Cubby in high school to owning a KA200 to = developing=20 the Envoy and other aircraft, and everything in-between, I am indebted = to=20 companies such as Lancair, Vans, and many others. But knowing what I do, = I am=20 always concerned when an airplane goes down and a soul is lost; and like = most of=20 you, would like to know all the reasons why.
Even if this particular tragedy = had nothing=20 to do with the aircraft itself, our current delay with the Envoy makes = me hope=20 that all companies - whether new or established - will continue striving = to keep=20 experimental aviation as "safe" as possible. Frankly, doing so is an = expensive=20 proposition, but the price will be paid... either by the company in = designing=20 excellent aircraft, or by the customers who will end up with expensive = but=20 inadequate machines, and which ultimately may cost lives. I repeat this, = not to=20 downplay or dismiss proper and ongoing training, but to reiterate that = we "in=20 the business" have a professional and moral obligation to protect those = who are=20 placing their trust (and lives) in us.
 
In conclusion - decide for = yourselves.=20 As Mr. Cowell so aptly said, "... If the assertions are = valid, or=20 even partially valid, then the affected Lancair pilots owe him a debt of = gratitude for bringing this situation to light. If, on the other hand, = the=20 assertions are found to be wanting either in specificity, fact, = completeness or=20 other significant category, that would be beneficial for all of us - not = the=20 least of whom is Mr. Ayers -- to know and understand as=20 well."
 
To those who gave me the benefit = of the=20 doubt, I thank you. To those who are so quick to judge, you are of = course free=20 to express your opinion, but please try to do so in a more considerate=20 manner.
I = am willing=20 to learn, and be corrected. I want to know and understand... I look = forward to=20 your help.
 
RA
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lancair = Mailing List=20 [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of=20 VTAILJEFF@aol.com
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 3:29=20 PM
To: Lancair Mailing List
Subject: [LML] Re: IVP = Crash

In a message dated 5/12/2006 7:24:56 AM Central Standard Time,=20 marv@lancaironline.net writes:
A safer Lancair = "record"?
  I would think that - by now - it would be = obvious that=20 what is needed is a
  safer "Lancair." We all know that = Lancairs are=20 neat planes, but they are
  also very hot to fly, with = virtually no=20 allowable margin for error.
  One only has to look at the = statistics=20 and the independent research to know
  it is an issue with = the=20 plane. In fairness, this is not unique to
  Lancairs...=20
Rienk,
 
In all "fairness" the statistics and independent research do not = support=20 your claim that the Lancair safety record is related to aircraft = issues. Quite=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=20 the 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 = "Envoy". A single engine turbo prop aircraft at Sreya Aviation. http://www.sreyaavi= ation.com/envoy/main.html
 
Regards,
 
Jeff Edwards
LIVP N619SJ
 

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/338 - Release Date: = 5/12/2006

------=_NextPart_000_004F_01C676E7.8D76BD90--