X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:19:30 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms173015pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.15] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c3) with ESMTP id 4000835 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:29:25 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.173.15; envelope-from=skipslater@verizon.net Received: from SkipPC ([173.58.203.163]) by vms173015.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KU300BT477OFXL5@vms173015.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:28:37 -0600 (CST) X-Original-Message-id: <6C95B1894BB44357A2D268FA4E8097F0@SkipPC> From: "Skip Slater" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-reply-to: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Vne is NOT a meaningless number X-Original-Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:27:41 -0800 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0021_01CA73FA.DCC09FB0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01CA73FA.DCC09FB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lynn, If Lance himself advocates routinely exceeding limitations on the = planes he sold, I wonder why he established those numbers in the first = place. The hard truth is that there is a speed at which any airplane = will come apart. How did you determine what that number is for your = plane? In the absence of a definitive, demonstrated number for = whichever model of Lancair we fly (which is impossible because they're = all built differently), how can you or I or anyone else know that figure = short of going out and killing ourselves? The prudent practice is to = observe the limits set by the manufacturer. My comments come from my 20,000 hours experience as a Naval Aviator = and a Captain for a major airline. In both of those careers, Vne (as = well as Mmo - max mach number) is a hard and fast limitation. Those = numbers are there for a reason and exceeding them requires a thorough = airframe inspection. My experience tells me that ignoring them is not = wise nor a safe thing to do. If you think it's safe, no one can stop = you from doing it. The reason I chimed in on this thread is that there = have been far too many avoidable fatal accidents in Lancairs that have = been attributed to pilots doing hazardous things with their planes. It = hurts me personally every time I hear of one of them. I'd rather throw = in my 2 cents worth now and take hits like this for expressing my views = than put out an "I told you so" if someone goes out and rips their wings = off because a few guys on the LML say they ignore Vne regularly with no = problems. Finally, my comment about giving pilots who brag about exceeding = limits a wide berth is also from my own experience. I've known several = pilots in my 37+ years of flying who have done this. Many of them are = dead. If I can make a single pilot think twice before exceeding a = published limitation, it's worth the hits I take for doing it. =20 If one exceeds this limitation, what's the next one they ignore? = It's a bad practice and one I strongly discourage. Skip Slater P.S. If you can get Lance, Pete or Joe to go on record that there's = nothing wrong with ignoring Vne, I'd like to see it. ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01CA73FA.DCC09FB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Lynn,

If Lance himself advocates = routinely=20 exceeding limitations on the planes he sold, I wonder why he = established=20 those numbers in the first place. The hard truth is that = there=20 is a speed at which any airplane will come apart. = How did=20 you determine what that number is for your plane? In the absence = of a=20 definitive, demonstrated number for whichever model of Lancair we = fly=20 (which is impossible because they're all built differently), how can you = or I or=20 anyone else know that figure short of going out and killing=20 ourselves? The prudent practice is to observe the limits set by = the=20 manufacturer.

My comments come from my = 20,000 hours=20 experience as a Naval Aviator and a Captain for a major airline. = In both=20 of those careers, Vne (as well as Mmo - max mach number) is a = hard=20 and fast limitation. Those numbers are there for a reason and = exceeding=20 them requires a thorough airframe inspection. My experience tells = me that=20 ignoring them is not wise nor a safe thing to do. If you = think it's=20 safe, no one can stop you from doing it. The reason I chimed in on = this=20 thread is that there have been far too many avoidable fatal = accidents=20 in Lancairs that have been attributed to pilots doing hazardous things = with=20 their planes. It hurts me personally every time I hear of one of=20 them. I'd rather throw in my 2 cents worth now and take hits like = this for=20 expressing my views than put out an "I told you so" if someone goes out = and rips=20 their wings off because a few guys on the LML say they ignore Vne = regularly with=20 no problems.

Finally, my comment = about giving=20 pilots who brag about exceeding limits a wide berth is also from my own=20 experience. I've known several pilots in my 37+ years of = flying who=20 have done this. Many of them are dead. If I can make a = single pilot=20 think twice before exceeding a published limitation, it's worth=20 the hits I take for doing it.

If one exceeds this = limitation,=20 what's the next one they ignore? It's a bad practice and one I = strongly=20 discourage.

Skip Slater

P.S. If you can get Lance, Pete = or Joe to go=20 on record that there's nothing wrong with ignoring Vne, I'd like to see=20 it.

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01CA73FA.DCC09FB0--