Mr. Ayers,
You've responded to the (admittedly hot-headed) vitriol, but not
the substance of my post. While there may be degrees of RISK with respect
to aircraft, the knowledge, skill and attitude of the pilot will have much more
impact on the outcome (safe or not) of a particular flight. I believe bashing
the aircraft (without any supporting data or facts) detracts from the most
important lesson: Short of an in-flight fire or break-up (or other catastrophic
event), the pilot is the sole determinant of the safe outcome of the
flight. Pilot's can (and do, obviously) get in over their heads.
Events conspire to present even the most skilled and experienced pilots with
untenable situations -- that's part of the risk we all accept to enjoy our
avocation. But, to place the blame on the aircraft (without proof
supported by DATA), to use your words, "...[doesn't] help solve any problems,
but rather tend[s] to intimidate people who are interested in the truth."
The truth is, Mr. Ayers, flying involves serious risks; we need to do all we can
to mitigate those risks. False assumptions (or claims) about the aircraft won't
help.
I stand by my statement on the substance of your original
post. You do this community a disservice when you denigrate an aircraft
while giving every appearance of doing so for commercial gain. As has
already been pointed out, your denial of involvement with one type of competing
aircraft (the Phoenix) without expressly acknowledging your involvement with
another (the Envoy) is at best confusing, at worst, intentional
obfuscation. For one who claims to strive for honesty I would think you
would be acutely aware of this.
Additionally, your
disservice to the flying community has insidious (although, admittedly, maybe
unintentional) side effects. Leading
pilots to believe the aircraft is unstable and/or uncontrollable can directly
result in one of the five hazardous attitudes identified by the FAA,
"RESIGNATION." If a pilot believes nothing he or she can do can prevent a
crash, then he or she is "resigned" to their fate. I want EVERY pilot to believe
he or she can FLY THE AIRCRAFT and land safely. If he or she believes the
design is unstable, uncontrollable or has so "little margin for error," that
they can't affect the outcome, they become resigned to the inevitable fatal
outcome. We need to do better than that!
Inanimate artifacts (like AIRCRAFT, AUTOMOBILES, GUNS, etc.) are
neither safe nor unsafe, that paradigm is a result of our litigious
society. They are nothing more than tools, tools which may be used in many
ways and for many purposes. Some tools entail more RISK for the operator than
others; it's up to the operator to acquire all available knowledge and training
to ensure the tool is used safely and effectively for it's intended
purpose. I saw a great bumper sticker recently, it read, "Guns kill people
like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat." Any tool may be abused or misused; such
abuse and misuse can be interpreted in many ways -- especially by trial
lawyers.
In your rebuttal you state, "If a design is unstable, it should
not be built or flown." You repeatedly used the engineering terms static
and dynamic stability, and even refer to controllability once, yet you make it
clear you have no engineering credentials. I can only assume you don't
have any data concerning the test flight regime used during the development of
the Lancair aircraft since you didn't refer to it. Where are you getting your
data regarding the lack of dynamic and static stability in the Lancair?
The only official public report (that I know of) completed by a reputable agency
(CAFE) gave the Lancair Legacy very high marks for dynamic and static
stability. Other informal test reports of different Lancair models I've
read in various magazines have never given me the impression that the authors
believed the aircraft reviewed to be unstable or lacked controllability.
In the absence of more information from a qualified reviewer, I have to believe
that if the original design and development team HAD found the aircraft to be
unstable or uncontrollable, Lancair would not have began selling kits. If
you have other DATA please share it.
You made the "brash" claim Lancair "...probably...had
trouble" getting the Columbia FAA certified. Can you define
"trouble?" You insinuated that Lancair ignored the "stability and
controllability derivatives." Is that another way of saying Lancair didn't
have all the documentation the FAA
wanted? Has there ever been a new aircraft design that met all the FAA
requirements (including paperwork) with no FAA-mandated "improvements?" Do
you KNOW something about the Columbia and the FAA aside from the fact that
Lancair met all FAA requirements and the
Columbia was subsequently certified? If you do, SHARE THE DATA!
Your example of the Lancair's decision to modify a design attempts
to place Lancair in a bad light. According to you, Lancair knew there was a
design flaw, but only made modifications after "independent" testing proved it.
Another way of looking at it is that Lancair became aware of a design deficiency
and took steps to improve it. Since your accusation comes from an individual
offering a competing design, I have to give it appropriate credence.
Lancair aircraft are high-performance tools designed for a
particular mission. There IS increased risk in operating these
aircraft. Such operations should be approached with the caution required
of any specialized tool; operators should seek specialized training and keep
their skills current. Anyone that operates these tools with the idea that
the operation is safe (as defined by Mr. Webster) is doing so in denial, or with
a misunderstanding of the term "safe."
By continuing to foist the false assumption that Lancair aircraft are "unsafe," you confuse the real issue; this
is the heart of my disagreement with you Mr. Ayers. Anyone who chooses to pilot a Lancair
design is (or should be) aware of the increased risk of operating a
high-performance aircraft -- safe operation of said aircraft is solely the
province of the pilot in command.
And here we are, stomping out the flames...
Mark Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com