Hi Hamid,

I apologize for leaving that idea with you.  That isn't the intent.  

I should have said:

"The idea is that we want people to KNOW whether or not the airplane is flyable.   If it is flyable, then if the canopy opens…..".  

What I am trying (perhaps poorly) to communicate is what we have to focus on, "knowing".  Once we really know what is going on, then we can bring forth 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 are not built on a good foundation.  I really think this stuff has to go.  We shouldn't release this as is.

Thanks
Kevin

  



On May 2, 2014, at 7:14 AM, Hamid Wasti <hwasti@lm50.com> 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.  That 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 undermines your credibility and leads people to not take your arguments seriously.
>
> The facts are that so far we are aware of one person, with unknown and unique training and experience, flying an airplane that is aerodynamically different than every other Legacy, under unknown conditions of weight & balance, was able to land with an open canopy.
>
> You are making a huge and untenable leap of logic extrapolating that once incident to mean that every Legacy, with its unique aerodynamics, under every allowable combination of weight & balance, will be flyable by a proficient pilot with an open canopy.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hamid
>
> --
>
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html