X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:07:57 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from col0-omc3-s17.col0.hotmail.com ([65.55.34.156] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.11) with ESMTP id 3400216 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:40:15 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.34.156; envelope-from=lsmith541@msn.com Received: from COL111-DS21 ([65.55.34.135]) by col0-omc3-s17.col0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 26 Dec 2008 10:39:40 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [75.164.199.4] X-Originating-Email: [lsmith541@msn.com] X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: lsmith541@msn.com From: "LEON SMITH" X-Original-To: "LancairList" Subject: Re: Insurance/training X-Original-Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 10:39:37 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0075_01C96746.3FEB59D0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.60.0053.2200 Seal-Send-Time: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 10:39:37 -0800 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Dec 2008 18:39:40.0468 (UTC) FILETIME=[4FDAA740:01C96789] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C96746.3FEB59D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable After reading Joe B's last post my reaction was that Lancair is = attempting to insert itself between the pilot/owners and the insurance = companies. =20 I am very much in favor of standardized training and I don't have a = problem with first inspections being done by a Lancair qualified/trained = DAR. What I do have a problem with is having to get a Lancair = representative's sign-off each year before I can get insurance. I = personally don't want a private for-profit company having this kind of = control over my ability to get insurance and therefore be able to fly my = plane. =20 With the LOBO approach, I can seek out any properly trained and = certified instructor to obtain recurrent training and have that = instructor certify that it was conducted according to the approved = syllabus. I DO NOT want to have to get Lancair's approval of that = training. Single source for anything, in my opinion, is bad!! I'm joining LOBO today. LS=20 500 hrs on my ES ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C96746.3FEB59D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

After reading Joe B's last post my reaction was that Lancair is = attempting=20 to insert itself between the pilot/owners and the insurance = companies. =20

I am very much in favor of standardized training and I don't have a = problem=20 with first inspections being done by a Lancair qualified/trained = DAR. What=20 I do have a problem with is having to get a Lancair representative's = sign-off=20 each year before I can get insurance. I personally don't want a = private=20 for-profit company having this kind of control over my ability to get=20 insurance and therefore be able to fly my plane.

With the LOBO approach, I can seek out any properly trained and = certified=20 instructor to obtain recurrent training and have that instructor certify = that it=20 was conducted according to the approved syllabus. I DO NOT want to = have to=20 get Lancair's approval of that training. Single source for = anything, in my=20 opinion, is bad!!

I'm joining LOBO today.

500 hrs on my ES

------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C96746.3FEB59D0--