X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:32:24 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.av-mx.com ([137.118.16.57] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTP id 3485983 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:41:57 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=137.118.16.57; envelope-from=pinetownd@volcano.net Received: from DennisDell (65-174-1-39.dsl.volcano.net [65.174.1.39]) (Authenticated sender: pinetownd@volcano.net) by smtp1.av-mx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3451B29075E for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:41:13 -0500 (EST) X-Original-Message-ID: <2EEB7CA54D6F42C7BAA0C51704E6487E@DennisDell> From: "Dennis Johnson" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: Re: Accident Narrative X-Original-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:41:11 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0094_01C98B5B.5354C900" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0094_01C98B5B.5354C900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "I believe that when the canopy was suck up far enough that it blanketed = the tail causing the aircraft to pitch nose down, causing the closing of = the canopy there in turn causing the elevator to become effective again = which then allowed me to regain control and level again, which caused = the canopy again to open, etc., etc." This may or may not be relevant to open canopy controllability, but I = think the preceding description is backwards. The tail provides = negative lift in level flight, pushing the nose down, not up. If the = open canopy blanketed the tail, I think the nose would have pitched up, = not down. =20 I point this out for two reasons: 1. It's an important concept that all of us pilots sometimes get = backwards and that can lead us to make incorrect decisions with = possibly bad outcomes. 2. A Legacy pilot I respect took off with his canopy open and reported = that there was absolutely no control issues. Lots of noise and charts = blowing around, but the canopy opened a couple of inches and stayed = there. I'm unable to reconcile his report with the "Accident Narrative" = description. =20 I'm not saying that the error in the description of the recent incident = invalidates the conclusion that an open Legacy canopy causes serious = control issues. I can understand that in the heat of battle, it would = be easy to confuse whether the nose was pitching up when the canopy = opened or vice versa. But considering that I have totally contradictory = evidence from another Legacy open canopy takeoff, it does create a = question that should be answered. Based on the numerous LML posts and discussions with other Lancair = pilots, taking off with an unlatched canopy is not uncommon and Legacy = pilots need to decide if it's a controllability issue or not. =20 My personal opinion is that a warning light or buzzer that the canopy is = unlatched would be helpful, but insufficient. Pilots ignore warning = lights and buzzers all the time because we become totally focused on = other tasks. That is a well established fact. Or a passenger could = snag a sleeve or purse handle around the Legacy's canopy latch handle = and accidentally raise the handle in flight. If I really believe that = an open Legacy canopy has the potential to make the airplane = uncontrollable, the current latch handle, at a minimum, must be locked = in flight to prevent accidental opening. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but for the moment, I'm = going with my friend's experience that there is no controllability = problem instead of the recent "Accident Narrative." However, it has = shaken that belief and I need to reconsider. =20 I invite Lancair International to provide solid facts on the issue, = based on flight testing or aerodynamic modeling. If it really is a = controllability issue, we must do something to reduce the risk and we = must do it now. If it's not an issue, let's stop wasting time worrying = about warning lights and develop a training program to deal with an open = canopy. Best, Dennis ------=_NextPart_000_0094_01C98B5B.5354C900 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"I believe = that when the=20 canopy was suck up far enough that it blanketed the tail causing the = aircraft to=20 pitch nose down, causing the closing of the canopy there in turn causing = the=20 elevator to become effective again which then allowed me to regain = control and=20 level again, which caused the canopy again to open, etc.,=20 etc."
 
This may or may not be relevant to open canopy=20 controllability, but I think the preceding description is = backwards. =20 The tail provides negative lift in level flight, pushing the nose = down, not=20 up.  If the open canopy blanketed the tail, I think the nose would = have=20 pitched up, not down.  
 
I point this out for two = reasons:
 
1.  It's an important concept = that all of=20 us pilots sometimes get backwards and that can lead us to make = incorrect=20 decisions  with possibly bad outcomes.
 
2.  A Legacy pilot I respect took off with = his canopy=20 open and reported that there was absolutely no control issues.  = Lots of=20 noise and charts blowing around, but the canopy opened a couple of = inches=20 and stayed there.  I'm unable to reconcile his report with the = "Accident=20 Narrative" description. 
 
I'm not saying that the error in the = description of the=20 recent incident invalidates the conclusion that an open Legacy = canopy=20 causes serious control issues.  I can understand that in the heat = of=20 battle, it would be easy to confuse whether the nose was pitching=20 up when the canopy opened or vice versa.  But considering = that I=20 have totally contradictory evidence from another Legacy open canopy = takeoff, it does create a question that should be = answered.
 
Based on the numerous LML posts and discussions = with other=20 Lancair pilots, taking off with an unlatched canopy is not uncommon and = Legacy=20 pilots need to decide if it's a controllability issue or=20 not.  
 
My personal opinion is that a warning light or = buzzer that=20 the canopy is unlatched would be helpful, but insufficient.  Pilots = ignore=20 warning lights and buzzers all the time because we become totally = focused on=20 other tasks.  That is a well established fact.  Or a passenger = could snag a sleeve or purse handle around the Legacy's = canopy=20 latch handle and accidentally raise the handle in flight.  = If I really=20 believe that an open Legacy canopy has the potential to make the = airplane=20 uncontrollable, the current latch handle, at a minimum, must be = locked in=20 flight to prevent accidental opening.
 
Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, = but for the=20 moment, I'm going with my friend's experience that there is no = controllability=20 problem instead of the recent "Accident Narrative." =20 However, it has shaken that belief and I need to=20 reconsider. 
 
I invite Lancair International to provide = solid facts=20 on the issue, based on flight testing or aerodynamic modeling.  If = it=20 really is a controllability issue, we must do something to reduce the = risk and=20 we must do it now.  If it's not an issue, let's stop wasting time = worrying=20 about warning lights and develop a training program to deal with an open = canopy.
 
Best,
Dennis 
------=_NextPart_000_0094_01C98B5B.5354C900--