|
|
| Hey Paul,
See my responses below.
Kevin
Kevin, I'm confused. First, how can any paper that leads to such discussion be a bad thing? Doesn't it cause the parties to look at the issue and possibly 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 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 you suggest ".. and re-secure the canopy" when you also say "putting a secondary latch on the canopy only begs unintended consequences"? How possibly can anyone secure an open canopy without modifying 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 canopy, cleans out his pants and takes off again. The idea is that we want people 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 on. 1. Demonstrating this and 2. TRAINING so that it the worst thing that happens is that he needs to visit the cleaners.
(cleaners because if he takes his soiled pants home, his wife is going to ask what happened, he is going to tell her and then he's grounded…..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 experiences versus someone who has never heard about an open canopy and then has 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 confidently 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 have 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 still 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 issue. If we pursue this a little further we might even get Wings credit for the discussion.
I would disagree, they are bad when you need to make decisions. You need to 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, 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
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 to whether or not they will be able to handle the airplane with a canopy partially 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 nothing more than having to empty your pants and re-secure the canopy and move on? This is the question we need to answer. This is the root of the problem.
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 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 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 months 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 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 sharp and such fantastic aviators that their personal, outstanding use of checklists solves most ills, well, 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 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 course checklists are wonderful tools and add to a safe flight, but do they solve 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 this canopy paper and appreciate all the hard work and talent that it represents. It could save your life.
Ron Jones
Sent from my iPad
|
|