Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:51:52 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-3088415@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.168.78.44; envelope-from=super_chipmunk@roadrunner.com
From: "Bill Wade" <super_chipmunk@roadrunner.com>
References: <list-3086839@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-3086839@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FAA and Lancair Accidents
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

  I'm surprised and a bit worried that the FAA is thinking about direct 
action. My understanding was that Experimentals are not evaluated for flight 
characteristics- given the freedom to build anything that you think is a 
good idea plus the variation in builder skills and "customizing" I don't see 
how they could. Getting into that area would open up a can of worms and 
effectively kill the Experimental category. Type Certificated aircraft are a 
different story of course, with everything extensively tested and then cast 
in stone. My understanding was that market forces are relied on, especially 
insurance companies. Of course if a plane develops a reputation for killing 
its pilots there's a damping effect on sales as well.

 There was a time 10-15 years ago when Velocities experienced a number of 
expensive claims. In at least one case the builder excercised his first 
option on salvage, rebuilt the plane then promptly crashed it again, each 
time probably making a large profit. The insurance companies were not happy 
and there was a period when Velocities were uninsurable. Perhaps 
coincidentally, Avemco stopped writing policies for Experimentals though 
they had a deal with EAA. Tom P. was still endorsing them for quite a while 
after- I decided at that point he was no friend of mine.

 As I recall the factory was eventually able to come up with a program 
combining initial inspections by a factory rep (either an employee or a 
designated builder) combined with type-specific training. I believe 
recurrent training was also required. This was accomplished within the 
private sector with no regulation from the FAA. I don't know what the safety 
record has been once the program was put into place.

  -Bill Wade

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <marv@lancair.net>
To: "lml"
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:01 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: FAA and Lancair Accidents


>
>
>
> Posted for larry.eversmeyer@faa.gov:
>
>  Dan,  I'm also building a Legacy RG.  Just last week I got a call from an
>  individual from FAA headquarter in Washington DC and he advised me that
>  the FAA has put together a group to address the high rate of Lancair
>  accidents.  He was told that I was familiar with the Lancair and wanted
>  some input or suggestion on how this trend can be reversed.  I have talk
>  to several fellow lascars folks including Joe Bartel.  If you have any
>  suggestion please let me know.  I'm trying to write up my comments and
>  have them done and sent to DC buy the first of next week.
>  Thanks
>  N72LE  still building
>  Larry Eversmeyer
>  office 405.954.6775
>  cell     405.209.3081
>
> --
> For archives and unsub 
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html