X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:39:31 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-6549049@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <mwsletten@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-ie0-f179.google.com ([209.85.223.179] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7)
  with ESMTPS id 6548941 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:33:29 -0400
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.223.179; envelope-from=mwsletten@gmail.com
Received: by mail-ie0-f179.google.com with SMTP id aq17so11339485iec.38
        for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.33.52 with SMTP id o20mr9250510igi.56.1382362370246; Mon,
 21 Oct 2013 06:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.226.166 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:32:50 -0500
X-Original-Message-ID: <CAG-Xp-u89SZsjJWN1kjsm+4ULfHmg7DVLWthktHy0m0GuHZL_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: HOW TO KILL YOURSELF IN A LANCAIR
From: Mark Sletten <mwsletten@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
X-Original-Cc: peterpawaviation@hotmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01538e5e078edc04e940520e

--089e01538e5e078edc04e940520e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

While I agree not understanding his aircraft's systems was a contributing
factor, in my mind the primary problem for this pilot was poor decision
making. Why in the world would you fly with a malfunction you don't
understand the cause and/or ramifications of?

That being said, here are my suggestions for non-builder owners who might
like to avoid such mishaps:

1. If possible, contact the original builder. Keep his/her phone number in
your contact list. Consult with him/her when facing problems such as the
one related here.

2. Get the system schematics the original builder used (if available) and
study/verify them.

3. If no schematics exist create them yourself. Get the help of an
experienced builder and/or maintenance professional.

4. Develop a go/no-go checklist based on knowledge of the systems.

I'm sure the excellent minds here on the LML can come up with more
suggestions.

--Mark Sletten




In a message to the LML dated Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Peter Williams wrote:

"The Lancair 235 that crashed near Hudson, Ky., on April 14, 2012..."

"Systems knowledge is crucial to the go/no-go situation in any case, but
the lack of standardization makes it especially critical for buyers of
experimental aircraft. Later owners don=92t automatically inherit the
builder=92s intimate familiarity with all the design decisions that could
have unexpected implications. Operating these aircraft safely requires
learning all their quirks while maintaining a healthy respect for risks
that haven=92t been anticipated."

--089e01538e5e078edc04e940520e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>While I agree not understanding his aircraft&#39;s sy=
stems was a contributing factor, in my mind the primary problem for this pi=
lot was poor decision making. Why in the world would you fly with a malfunc=
tion you don&#39;t understand the cause and/or ramifications of?</div>
<div><br></div><div>That being said, here are my suggestions for non-builde=
r owners who might like to avoid such mishaps:</div><div><br></div><div>1. =
If possible, contact the original builder. Keep his/her phone number in you=
r contact list. Consult with him/her when facing problems such as the one r=
elated here.=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>2. Get the system schematics the original builder used =
(if available) and study/verify them.</div><div><br></div><div>3. If no sch=
ematics exist create them yourself. Get the help of an experienced builder =
and/or maintenance professional.</div>
<div><br></div><div>4. Develop a go/no-go checklist based on knowledge of t=
he systems.</div><div><br></div><div>I&#39;m sure the excellent minds here =
on the LML can come up with more suggestions.</div><div><br></div><div>
--Mark Sletten</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><=
/div>In a message to the LML dated=A0Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Peter Williams wrote=
:<div><br></div><div><div>&quot;The Lancair 235 that crashed near Hudson, K=
y., on April 14, 2012...&quot;</div>
<div><br></div><div>&quot;Systems knowledge is crucial to the go/no-go situ=
ation in any case, but the lack of standardization makes it especially crit=
ical for buyers of experimental aircraft. Later owners don=92t automaticall=
y inherit the builder=92s intimate familiarity with all the design decision=
s that could have unexpected implications. Operating these aircraft safely =
requires learning all their quirks while maintaining a healthy respect for =
risks that haven=92t been anticipated.&quot;</div>
</div></div>

--089e01538e5e078edc04e940520e--