X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 12:19:57 -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 6856035 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 02 May 2014 11:10:56 -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; Fri, 2 May 2014 09:10:21 -0600 From: Kevin Stallard X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 09:10:23 -0600 Subject: Re: [LML] Legacy White Paper Thread-Topic: [LML] Legacy White Paper Thread-Index: Ac9mGKJHrx3C2YjcQjC+L5EiS+Xhpw== X-Original-Message-ID: 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: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Hi Hamid, I apologize for leaving that idea with you. That isn't the intent. =20 I should have said: "The idea is that we want people to KNOW whether or not the airplane is fly= able. If it is flyable, then if the canopy opens=85..". =20 What I am trying (perhaps poorly) to communicate is what we have to focus o= n, "knowing". Once we really know what is going on, then we can bring fort= h real solutions that can have consistent outcomes. Right now, we don't and this report, while it contains accident reports, it= also contains erroneous information that then leads to conclusions that ar= e not built on a good foundation. I really think this stuff has to go. We= shouldn't release this as is. Thanks Kevin =20 On May 2, 2014, at 7:14 AM, Hamid Wasti wrote: > On 5/2/2014 4:27 AM, Kevin Stallard wrote: >> The idea is that we want people to KNOW that the airplane is flyable. T= hat if the canopy opens, they still need to (and can) fly the airplane. > You have been complaining that the report portrays suppositions as facts.= And then you are doing exactly the same thing yourself. That severely unde= rmines your credibility and leads people to not take your arguments serious= ly. >=20 > The facts are that so far we are aware of one person, with unknown and un= ique training and experience, flying an airplane that is aerodynamically di= fferent than every other Legacy, under unknown conditions of weight & balan= ce, was able to land with an open canopy. >=20 > You are making a huge and untenable leap of logic extrapolating that once= incident to mean that every Legacy, with its unique aerodynamics, under ev= ery allowable combination of weight & balance, will be flyable by a profici= ent pilot with an open canopy. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Hamid >=20 > -- >=20 > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.ht= ml