X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 17:07:47 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [204.13.112.10] (HELO mail1.hometel.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTPS id 1114268 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 15 May 2006 13:12:55 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.13.112.10; envelope-from=marknlisa@hometel.com Received: (qmail 41834 invoked by uid 90); 15 May 2006 17:21:36 -0000 Received: from dsl-stj-204-13-118-2.stj.hometel.com (HELO MARKNLISA) (204.13.118.2) by mail.hometel.com with SMTP; 15 May 2006 17:21:36 -0000 From: "Mark & Lisa" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Original-Cc: Subject: Re: IVP Crash X-Original-Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 12:12:46 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0033_01C67818.E0327830" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <009901c677d1$56995f40$6501a8c0@Rienklaptop1> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01C67818.E0327830 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MessageMr. Ayers, You've responded to the (admittedly hot-headed) vitriol, but not the substance of my post. While there may be degrees of RISK with respect to aircraft, the knowledge, skill and attitude of the pilot will have much more impact on the outcome (safe or not) of a particular flight. I believe bashing the aircraft (without any supporting data or facts) detracts from the most important lesson: Short of an in-flight fire or break-up (or other catastrophic event), the pilot is the sole determinant of the safe outcome of the flight. Pilot's can (and do, obviously) get in over their heads. Events conspire to present even the most skilled and experienced pilots with untenable situations -- that's part of the risk we all accept to enjoy our avocation. But, to place the blame on the aircraft (without proof supported by DATA), to use your words, "...[doesn't] help solve any problems, but rather tend[s] to intimidate people who are interested in the truth." The truth is, Mr. Ayers, flying involves serious risks; we need to do all we can to mitigate those risks. False assumptions (or claims) about the aircraft won't help. I stand by my statement on the substance of your original post. You do this community a disservice when you denigrate an aircraft while giving every appearance of doing so for commercial gain. As has already been pointed out, your denial of involvement with one type of competing aircraft (the Phoenix) without expressly acknowledging your involvement with another (the Envoy) is at best confusing, at worst, intentional obfuscation. For one who claims to strive for honesty I would think you would be acutely aware of this. Additionally, your disservice to the flying community has insidious (although, admittedly, maybe unintentional) side effects. Leading pilots to believe the aircraft is unstable and/or uncontrollable can directly result in one of the five hazardous attitudes identified by the FAA, "RESIGNATION." If a pilot believes nothing he or she can do can prevent a crash, then he or she is "resigned" to their fate. I want EVERY pilot to believe he or she can FLY THE AIRCRAFT and land safely. If he or she believes the design is unstable, uncontrollable or has so "little margin for error," that they can't affect the outcome, they become resigned to the inevitable fatal outcome. We need to do better than that! Inanimate artifacts (like AIRCRAFT, AUTOMOBILES, GUNS, etc.) are neither safe nor unsafe, that paradigm is a result of our litigious society. They are nothing more than tools, tools which may be used in many ways and for many purposes. Some tools entail more RISK for the operator than others; it's up to the operator to acquire all available knowledge and training to ensure the tool is used safely and effectively for it's intended purpose. I saw a great bumper sticker recently, it read, "Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat." Any tool may be abused or misused; such abuse and misuse can be interpreted in many ways -- especially by trial lawyers. In your rebuttal you state, "If a design is unstable, it should not be built or flown." You repeatedly used the engineering terms static and dynamic stability, and even refer to controllability once, yet you make it clear you have no engineering credentials. I can only assume you don't have any data concerning the test flight regime used during the development of the Lancair aircraft since you didn't refer to it. Where are you getting your data regarding the lack of dynamic and static stability in the Lancair? The only official public report (that I know of) completed by a reputable agency (CAFE) gave the Lancair Legacy very high marks for dynamic and static stability. Other informal test reports of different Lancair models I've read in various magazines have never given me the impression that the authors believed the aircraft reviewed to be unstable or lacked controllability. In the absence of more information from a qualified reviewer, I have to believe that if the original design and development team HAD found the aircraft to be unstable or uncontrollable, Lancair would not have began selling kits. If you have other DATA please share it. You made the "brash" claim Lancair "...probably...had trouble" getting the Columbia FAA certified. Can you define "trouble?" You insinuated that Lancair ignored the "stability and controllability derivatives." Is that another way of saying Lancair didn't have all the documentation the FAA wanted? Has there ever been a new aircraft design that met all the FAA requirements (including paperwork) with no FAA-mandated "improvements?" Do you KNOW something about the Columbia and the FAA aside from the fact that Lancair met all FAA requirements and the Columbia was subsequently certified? If you do, SHARE THE DATA! Your example of the Lancair's decision to modify a design attempts to place Lancair in a bad light. According to you, Lancair knew there was a design flaw, but only made modifications after "independent" testing proved it. Another way of looking at it is that Lancair became aware of a design deficiency and took steps to improve it. Since your accusation comes from an individual offering a competing design, I have to give it appropriate credence. Lancair aircraft are high-performance tools designed for a particular mission. There IS increased risk in operating these aircraft. Such operations should be approached with the caution required of any specialized tool; operators should seek specialized training and keep their skills current. Anyone that operates these tools with the idea that the operation is safe (as defined by Mr. Webster) is doing so in denial, or with a misunderstanding of the term "safe." By continuing to foist the false assumption that Lancair aircraft are "unsafe," you confuse the real issue; this is the heart of my disagreement with you Mr. Ayers. Anyone who chooses to pilot a Lancair design is (or should be) aware of the increased risk of operating a high-performance aircraft -- safe operation of said aircraft is solely the province of the pilot in command. And here we are, stomping out the flames... Mark Sletten Legacy FG N828LM http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01C67818.E0327830 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Mr. Ayers,

You've responded to the (admittedly hot-headed) vitriol, = but not=20 the substance of my post.  While there may be degrees of RISK with = respect=20 to aircraft, the knowledge, skill and attitude of the pilot will have = much more=20 impact on the outcome (safe or not) of a particular flight. I believe = bashing=20 the aircraft (without any supporting data or facts) detracts from the = most=20 important lesson: Short of an in-flight fire or break-up (or other = catastrophic=20 event), the pilot is the sole determinant of the safe outcome of the=20 flight.  Pilot's can (and do, obviously) get in over their = heads. =20 Events conspire to present even the most skilled and experienced pilots = with=20 untenable situations -- that's part of the risk we all accept to enjoy = our=20 avocation.  But, to place the blame on the aircraft (without proof=20 supported by DATA), to use your words, "...[doesn't] help solve any = problems,=20 but rather tend[s] to intimidate people who are interested in the = truth." =20 The truth is, Mr. Ayers, flying involves serious risks; we need to do = all we can=20 to mitigate those risks. False assumptions (or claims) about the = aircraft won't=20 help.

I stand by my statement on the substance of your = original=20 post.  You do this community a disservice when you denigrate an = aircraft=20 while giving every appearance of doing so for commercial gain.  As = has=20 already been pointed out, your denial of involvement with one type of = competing=20 aircraft (the Phoenix) without expressly acknowledging your involvement = with=20 another (the Envoy) is at best confusing, at worst, intentional=20 obfuscation.  For one who claims to strive for honesty I would = think you=20 would be acutely aware of this.

Additionally, = your=20 disservice to the flying community has insidious (although, admittedly, = maybe=20 unintentional) side = effects.  Leading=20 pilots to believe the aircraft is unstable and/or uncontrollable can = directly=20 result in one of the five hazardous attitudes identified by the FAA,=20 "RESIGNATION."  If a pilot believes nothing he or she can do can = prevent a=20 crash, then he or she is "resigned" to their fate. I want EVERY pilot to = believe=20 he or she can FLY THE AIRCRAFT and land safely.  If he or she = believes the=20 design is unstable, uncontrollable or has so "little margin for error," = that=20 they can't affect the outcome, they become resigned to the inevitable = fatal=20 outcome.  We need to do better than that!

Inanimate artifacts (like AIRCRAFT, AUTOMOBILES, GUNS, = etc.) are=20 neither safe nor unsafe, that paradigm is a result of our litigious=20 society.  They are nothing more than tools, tools which may be used = in many=20 ways and for many purposes. Some tools entail more RISK for the operator = than=20 others; it's up to the operator to acquire all available knowledge and = training=20 to ensure the tool is used safely and effectively for it's intended=20 purpose.  I saw a great bumper sticker recently, it read, "Guns = kill people=20 like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat." Any tool may be abused or = misused; such=20 abuse and misuse can be interpreted in many ways -- especially by trial=20 lawyers.

In your rebuttal you state, "If a design is unstable, it = should=20 not be built or flown."  You repeatedly used the engineering terms = static=20 and dynamic stability, and even refer to controllability once, yet you = make it=20 clear you have no engineering credentials.  I can only assume you = don't=20 have any data concerning the test flight regime used during the = development of=20 the Lancair aircraft since you didn't refer to it. Where are you getting = your=20 data regarding the lack of dynamic and static stability in the = Lancair? =20 The only official public report (that I know of) completed by a = reputable agency=20 (CAFE) gave the Lancair Legacy very high marks for dynamic and static=20 stability.  Other informal test reports of different Lancair models = I've=20 read in various magazines have never given me the impression that the = authors=20 believed the aircraft reviewed to be unstable or lacked = controllability. =20 In the absence of more information from a qualified reviewer, I have to = believe=20 that if the original design and development team HAD found the aircraft = to be=20 unstable or uncontrollable, Lancair would not have began selling = kits.  If=20 you have other DATA please share it.

You made the "brash" claim Lancair = "...probably...had=20 trouble" getting the Columbia FAA certified.  Can you define=20 "trouble?"  You insinuated that Lancair ignored the "stability and=20 controllability derivatives."  Is that another way of saying = Lancair didn't=20 have all the documentation = the FAA=20 wanted?  Has there ever been a new aircraft design that met all the = FAA=20 requirements (including paperwork) with no FAA-mandated = "improvements?"  Do=20 you KNOW something about the Columbia and the FAA aside from the fact = that=20 Lancair met all FAA requirements and the=20 Columbia was subsequently certified?  If you do, SHARE THE = DATA!

Your example of the Lancair's decision to modify a = design attempts=20 to place Lancair in a bad light. According to you, Lancair knew there = was a=20 design flaw, but only made modifications after "independent" testing = proved it.=20 Another way of looking at it is that Lancair became aware of a design = deficiency=20 and took steps to improve it. Since your accusation comes from an = individual=20 offering a competing design, I have to give it appropriate credence.

Lancair aircraft are high-performance tools designed for = a=20 particular mission.  There IS increased risk in operating these=20 aircraft.  Such operations should be approached with the caution = required=20 of any specialized tool; operators should seek specialized training and = keep=20 their skills current.  Anyone that operates these tools with the = idea that=20 the operation is safe (as defined by Mr. Webster) is doing so in denial, = or with=20 a misunderstanding of the term "safe."

By continuing to foist the false assumption = that Lancair aircraft are "unsafe," you confuse the real = issue; this=20 is the heart of my disagreement with you Mr. Ayers.  Anyone who chooses to pilot a = Lancair=20 design is (or should be) aware of the increased risk of operating a=20 high-performance aircraft -- safe operation of said aircraft is solely = the=20 province of the pilot in command.

And here we are, stomping out the flames...

Mark Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com


 

------=_NextPart_000_0033_01C67818.E0327830--