From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: IVP Crash
To: lml
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 23:19:12 -0400
Message-ID: <web-1116732@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <8984A39879F2F5418251CBEEC9C689B314E86E@lucky.dts.local>
References: <8984A39879F2F5418251CBEEC9C689B314E86E@lucky.dts.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


Posted for "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>:

  I don't have a dog, or a Lancair, in this fight-happen to be a canard
  man myself, but this safe/unsafe argument clearly misses the point.  As
  Mr. Sletten pointed out, an inanimate object is neither safe or unsafe.
  True.  However, it is incontrovertible that between two inanimate
  objects intended to be used for flying, one is most certainly safer than
  the other, as no two objects can occupy the same relative position.  Of
  course, even that relativity is based on pilot experience, practices and
  knowledge.
  
  
  If RA's point was that Lancairs are unsafe, I would disagree.  However
  if, as I suspect, he was intending to say that 'Lancairs are relatively
  unsafe compared to many other planes', then any Lancair builder or pilot
  that disagrees does so at his personal peril.  That's not to say that a
  Lancair can't be flown safely, but it takes a higher level of skill,
  awareness and vigilance than a flying a C172. If this is true, and I
  believe it is, then a Lancair is relatively (to a C172) unsafe.
  
  
  Yes, one can demand engineering data on stability, static and dynamic
  and all kinds of numbers, but for those not whistling in the dark, just
  look at the NTSB Accident List-that's evidence enough.  And, it should
  be understood that this log of accidents was built with the inclusion of
  many pilots that were not 25 hour per year fliers with 125 hours TT.  On
  that list are CFIIs, Instructors, ATPs, Commercial pilots ad nauseum.
  
  
  Do I dislike or am I attempting to denigrate the Lancair....not at all.
  I love the look, I love the performance and I would love to have the
  skill to fly one safely.  Instead, I'll stick with a canard pusher that
  is a better match to my piloting skills and when I get low and slow in
  the pattern.
  
  
  In short, to not acknowledge that the Lancair requires a higher level of
  skill to fly safely is simply denial.  On the other hand, anyone that
  wants to diplomatically remind Lancair fliers to 'be careful out there'
  is doing a public service, not a disservice to the plane.
  
  
  Thanks,
  
  Chuck Jensen