X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 12:19:56 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from exprod7og116.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.219] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with SMTP id 6851214 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 08:51:33 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.18.2.219; envelope-from=jsocolof@ershire.com Received: from mail.fins.org ([74.8.85.130]) by exprod7ob116.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKU1+gMuxxXAGWNXGZBkb/ysQauABZwzP9@postini.com; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 05:51:34 PDT Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Legacy White Paper MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CF63A9.8FB9CC98" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 X-Original-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 08:50:31 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <4C1329C81FB629449A04A2D7FC1F8EFA4FBD2C@defiant.fins.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Legacy White Paper Thread-Index: Ac9jqZquOZqCxohMRgeitlxB7UViHQ== From: "Jon Socolof" X-Original-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CF63A9.8FB9CC98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have trained with Josh and never heard him say this, so maybe we could get the more information. That being said, it would support my point in that the retractable step is a modification to the original design and was not designed by Lancair. The original design is well engineered and sufficient. Builder modifications are a judgment call and may have unintended consequences. Again there is nothing new or unknown here and I fear a report like this may result in the aircraft being unfairly perceived as inherently unsafe.=20 =20 FWIW =20 Jon ------_=_NextPart_001_01CF63A9.8FB9CC98 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have = trained with Josh and never heard him say this, so maybe we could get = the more information. That being said, it would support my point in that = the retractable step is a modification to the original design and was = not designed by Lancair. The original design is well engineered and = sufficient. Builder modifications are a judgment call and may have = unintended consequences. Again there is nothing new or unknown here and = I fear a report like this may result in the aircraft being unfairly = perceived as inherently unsafe.

 

FWIW

 

Jon

------_=_NextPart_001_01CF63A9.8FB9CC98--