Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 14:52:32 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-6856437@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=74.208.4.194; envelope-from=david@fahrencorp.com
From: David Williams <david@fahrencorp.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Legacy White Paper
Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Legacy White Paper
Thread-Index: AQHPZiJedjnk8v1FcESIdGHzJvhng5ss87CA
References: <list-6856151@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-6856151@logan.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.1.140326
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <0E2EA40B18E81A4593E9E6A588A4A6B4@winus.mail>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Kevin,

Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out the =B3erroneous=B2 informati=
on
to all of us?

David Williams=20

On 5/2/14, 10:19 AM, "Kevin Stallard" <kevin@arilabs.net> wrote:

>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=8A..".
>
>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
>
> =20
>
>
>
>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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=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 every allowable combination of weight & balance, will be flyable
>>by a proficient pilot with an open canopy.
>>=20
>> Regards,
>>=20
>> Hamid
>>=20
>> --
>>=20
>> For archives and unsub
>>http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
>
>
>--
>For archives and unsub
>http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html