X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 07:27:55 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [63.230.26.161] (HELO exchange.arilabs.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTPS id 6855303 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 01 May 2014 18:42:16 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=63.230.26.161; envelope-from=kevin@arilabs.net Received: from exchange.arilabs.net ([10.100.100.1]) by exchange.arilabs.net ([10.100.100.1]) with mapi; Thu, 1 May 2014 16:41:42 -0600 From: Kevin Stallard X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 16:41:40 -0600 Subject: Re: [LML] Legacy White Paper Thread-Topic: [LML] Legacy White Paper Thread-Index: Ac9ljoUwC9At5BKGRx6EFeM2Dao/HA== X-Original-Message-ID: <78BBDD0E-576A-4FB7-8757-C2E9755197A5@arilabs.net> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_78BBDD0E576A4FB78757C2E9755197A5arilabsnet_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_78BBDD0E576A4FB78757C2E9755197A5arilabsnet_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey Paul, See my responses below. Kevin On May 1, 2014, at 8:10 AM, Paul Miller > wrote: Kevin, I'm confused. First, how can any paper that leads to such discussio= n be a bad thing? Doesn't it cause the parties to look at the issue and po= ssibly get that training you suggest--whatever that might look like? My issue with it (sorry Valin, I know you worked hard on this, please don't= take this personal) is that some instances t portrays supposition as fact.= There is even a diagram of the airflow over the airplane with the canopy = open, yet there is no data to support it. This kind of thing will be used in some court trial somewhere and someone i= s going to get screwed. This is too important of a subject to have even co= me close to misrepresenting what is really going on here. Also, how can we do what you suggest ".. and re-secure the canopy" when you= also say "putting a secondary latch on the canopy only begs unintended con= sequences"? How possibly can anyone secure an open canopy without modifyin= g the current setup? I didn't do a good job phrasing this. Re-read it. It's about what we want= the outcome to be. That the person lands, pulls over, re-secures the cano= py, cleans out his pants and takes off again. The idea is that we want p= eople to KNOW that the airplane is flyable. That if the canopy opens, they= still need to (and can) fly the airplane. This is what we need to focus o= n. 1. Demonstrating this and 2. TRAINING so that it the worst thing th= at happens is that he needs to visit the cleaners. (cleaners because if he takes his soiled pants home, his wife is going to a= sk what happened, he is going to tell her and then he's grounded=85..don't = want that either) And last, where do you get the data to support: "If the pilot has any doubt= as to the outcome, their chances of survival go way down." In fact, don'= t pilots have a better understanding of the issue after reading all the exp= eriences versus someone who has never heard about an open canopy and then h= as one pop open? Ask anyone who has survived a life threatening event. If you doubt or are = ignorant of what the airplane will do given some response, how can you conf= idently perform your duties as PIC and save the day? You HAVE TO KNOW what= the airplane is going to do so you can make the right choices so you can h= ave a good outcome. If you doubt, you waste precious time, you risk doing = the wrong thing because of fear and you risk hurting yourself or worse. Doubt and fear aren't bad things. They make me double check stuff and stay= on the ground sometimes. I just don't understand why you think the masses = won't be able to digest the material. The paper seems far less scary than = the warnings on a California wine bottle yet people all over the world stil= l drink from those bottles. It just seems extreme for someone to plea to = retract an article that is largely based on real experiences and outcomes. = Perhaps you could detail more of your thoughts about retracting the paper= yet somehow we'll find a way to progress on training on the open canopy is= sue. If we pursue this a little further we might even get Wings credit fo= r the discussion. I would disagree, they are bad when you need to make decisions. You need t= o know. You actions need to be automatic and sure. It is why we practice = engine outs. You have to know what to expect. This paper isn't neutral, i= t could easily leave the reader doubtful that he/she would survive, and wor= se, it uses nonexistent data to make those points (for example: the airflow= over the airplane diagrams). Thanks, Kevin Paul Legacy On 2014-04-30, at 4:04 PM, Kevin Stallard > wrote: Guys & Gals, Let me put it this way. If a pilot finds him or herself in a tight spot, something is going wrong. = Is there room for doubt regarding any action they choose and the expected = outcome? My big issue with this paper is that it leaves doubt in someone's mind as t= o whether or not they will be able to handle the airplane with a canopy par= tially open. Regardless of how much we try to protect ourselves with little gadgets and = knick knacks, you very well may find yourself with an open canopy. The problem we should be focused on aren't checklists and knick knacks, but= TRAINING. How do we respond and how do we practice this event so that n= othing more than having to empty your pants and re-secure the canopy and mo= ve on? This is the question we need to answer. This is the root of the pr= oblem. If the pilot has any doubt as to the outcome, their chances of survival go= way down. Please I'm begging you, don't publish this as is. Yes, it h= as informative information, but putting a secondary latch on the canopy onl= y begs unintended consequences. (LIke how do you get out when there is a f= ire). It sends people down the wrong roads looking for a solution. Yes I= know finding the right solution is going to be hard, but it is necessary. I understand the desire to have a solution now. But we don't. Give me 6 m= onths and we'l have some real data to talk about. Thanks Kevin On Apr 30, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Ron Jones wrote: Valin, Your Canopy Safety Issue Paper is outstanding. It should be read by all Leg= acy owners and pilots. Your reply to the recent criticisms is equally well written and well reason= ed. For all of those who think that they are so sharp and such fantastic aviato= rs that their personal, outstanding use of checklists solves most ills, wel= l, I just wish you would get out of Lancair's entirely. Not only are you an= accident just waiting to happen, you are driving up all our insurance rate= s with such arrogant, short-sighted thinking. Is this to harsh? Maybe. But spouting all this nonsense about infallible ch= ecklists really gets me annoyed. How many lives have to be lost before folk= s wise up? Of course checklists are wonderful tools and add to a safe fligh= t, but do they solve all ills? The record of Lancair accidents suggest othe= rwise. I suggest we all pledge to more carefully follow our checklists. I also sug= gest we actually read this canopy paper and appreciate all the hard work an= d talent that it represents. It could save your life. Ron Jones Sent from my iPad On Apr 30, 2014, at 5:05 AM, "Valin & Allyson Thorn" > wrote: --_000_78BBDD0E576A4FB78757C2E9755197A5arilabsnet_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey Paul,

See my responses below.  

Kevin
=

On May 1, 2014, at 8:10 AM, Paul Miller <<= a href=3D"mailto:pjdmiller@gmail.com">pjdmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
Kevin, I'm confused.  First, how can any paper = that leads to such discussion be a bad thing?  Doesn't it cause the pa= rties to look at the issue and possibly get that training you suggest--what= ever that might look like?


My issue wi= th it (sorry Valin, I know you worked hard on this, please don't take this = personal) is that some instances t portrays supposition as fact.  Ther= e is even a diagram of the airflow over the airplane with the canopy open, = yet there is no data to support it.

This kind of t= hing will be used in some court trial somewhere and someone is going to get= screwed.  This is too important of a subject to have even come close = to misrepresenting what is really going on here.

Also, how can we do what yo= u suggest ".. and re-secure the canopy" when you also say "putting a s= econdary latch on the canopy only begs unintended consequences"?  How = possibly can anyone secure an open canopy without modifying the current set= up?

I didn't do a good job phrasing = this.  Re-read it.  It's about what we want the outcome to be. &n= bsp;That the person lands, pulls over, re-secures the canopy, cleans out hi= s pants and takes off again.    The idea is that we want people t= o KNOW that the airplane is flyable.  That if the canopy opens, they s= till need to (and can) fly the airplane.  This is what we need to focu= s on.   1.  Demonstrating this and 2.  TRAINING  so tha= t it the worst thing that happens is that he needs to visit the cleaners.&n= bsp;

(cleaners because if he takes his soiled pant= s home, his wife is going to ask what happened, he is going to tell her and= then he's grounded=85..don't want that either)


And last, where do you get the data to support: "If the pilot has any dou= bt as to the outcome,  their chances of survival go way down."  I= n fact, don't pilots have a better understanding of the issue after reading= all the experiences versus someone who has never heard about an open canop= y and then has one pop open?   


Ask anyone who has survived a life threatening event.  If yo= u doubt or are ignorant of what the airplane will do given some response, h= ow can you confidently perform your duties as PIC and save the day?  Y= ou HAVE TO KNOW what the airplane is going to do so you can make the right = choices so you can have a good outcome.  If you doubt, you waste preci= ous time, you risk doing the wrong thing because of fear and you risk hurti= ng yourself or worse.


Doubt and fear aren't bad th= ings.  They make me double check stuff and stay on the ground sometime= s. I just don't understand why you think the masses won't be able to digest= the material.  The paper seems far less scary than the warnings on a = California wine bottle yet people all over the world still drink from those= bottles.   It just seems extreme for someone to plea to retract an ar= ticle that is largely based on real experiences and outcomes.   Perhap= s you could detail more of your thoughts about retracting the paper yet som= ehow we'll find a way to progress on training on the open canopy issue. &nb= sp; If we pursue this a little further we might even get Wings credit for t= he discussion.


I would disagree,= they are bad when you need to make decisions.  You need to know. &nbs= p;You actions need to be automatic and sure.  It is why we practice en= gine outs.  You have to know what to expect.  This paper isn't ne= utral, it could easily leave the reader doubtful that he/she would survive,= and worse, it uses nonexistent data to make those points (for example: the= airflow over the airplane diagrams). 

Thanks= ,
Kevin


Paul
Legacy

<= div>

On 2014-04-30, at 4:04 PM, Kevin Stallard = <kevin@arilabs.net> wrote:
Gu= ys & Gals,

Let me put it this way.

If a pilot finds him or herself in a tight spot, something is going= wrong.  Is there room for doubt regarding any action they choose and = the expected outcome?

My big issue with this paper= is that it leaves doubt in someone's mind as to whether or not they will b= e able to handle the airplane with a canopy partially open.

<= /div>
Regardless of how much we try to protect ourselves with little ga= dgets and knick knacks, you very well may find yourself with an open canopy= .

The problem we should be focused on aren't check= lists and knick knacks, but TRAINING.    How do we respond and ho= w do we practice this event so that nothing more than having to empty your = pants and re-secure the canopy and move on?  This is the question we n= eed to answer.  This is the root of the problem.

<= div>If the pilot has any doubt as to the outcome,  their chances of su= rvival go way down.     Please I'm begging you, don't publish thi= s as is.  Yes, it has informative information, but putting a secondary= latch on the canopy only begs unintended consequences.  (LIke how do = you get out when there is a fire).  It sends people down the wrong roa= ds looking for a solution.   Yes I know finding the right solution is = going to be hard, but it is necessary.

I understan= d the desire to have a solution now.  But we don't.  Give me 6 mo= nths and we'l have some real data to talk about.

T= hanks
Kevin



On Apr 30, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Ron Jones wrote:

Valin,

Your Canopy Safety Issue Paper is outstandin= g. It should be read by all Legacy owners and pilots.

Your reply to the recent criticisms = is equally well written and well reasoned.

For all of those who think that they are so sha= rp and such fantastic aviators that their personal, outstanding use of chec= klists solves most ills, well, I just wish you would get out of Lancair's e= ntirely. Not only are you an accident just waiting to happen, you are drivi= ng up all our insurance rates with such arrogant, short-sighted thinking.

=
Is this to harsh= ? Maybe. But spouting all this nonsense about infallible checklists really = gets me annoyed. How many lives have to be lost before folks wise up? Of co= urse checklists are wonderful tools and add to a safe flight, but do they s= olve all ills? The record of Lancair accidents suggest otherwise.

I suggest we all pledge = to more carefully follow our checklists. I also suggest we actually read th= is canopy paper and appreciate all the hard work and talent that it represe= nts. It could save your life.

Ron Jones

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 30, 2014, at 5:05 AM, "Valin & Allyson Thorn" = <thorn@starflight.aero> = wrote:



= --_000_78BBDD0E576A4FB78757C2E9755197A5arilabsnet_--