X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:02:31 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from blu0-omc3-s35.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.110] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c3) with ESMTP id 4022994 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:07:15 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.116.110; envelope-from=randystuart@hotmail.com Received: from BLU0-SMTP28 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s35.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:06:39 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [99.163.183.180] X-Originating-Email: [randystuart@hotmail.com] X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: randystuart@hotmail.com Received: from laptop ([99.163.183.180]) by BLU0-SMTP28.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:06:35 -0800 From: "Randy" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Tone on list X-Original-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:06:35 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0058_01CA7DB9.B8CDD780" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Dec 2009 03:06:36.0125 (UTC) FILETIME=[C73B18D0:01CA7DFC] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0058_01CA7DB9.B8CDD780 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well, here we go again.... The sky is falling. =20 With the spirit of the "Tone on the list", again, anyone that said they = have flown beyond Vne is attacked.=20 Blaming us for your insurance rates because I said I have flown past = Vne? Now you've added we must be "Low time / Low experienced folks".. = Really???? Year after year after year after year I've never had any problem binding = a full policy for my Lancair, for a very reasonable premium, nor has = anyone else I know with an LNC-2. LNC-4's on the other hand, the = Lancair's that do seem to cause many fatals, is hard to insure and = expensive.=20 And you blame that on a post on the LML??? Do you have any proof what so = ever backing this extraordinary claim? Are all the underwriters reading = this forum and raising LNC-4 rates because someone with an LNC-2 said he = likes to go fast?? No wait, it was " blatant risky behavior"... =20 My rates have gone down.... Hummm.. I guess I must be a "Good risk".. This is not constructive criticism, this down right rude and abusive to = talk that way about other pilots. This is my choice, not yours, I don't = believe I'm "risky".=20 I don't raise your rates ( which is a ridiculous statement ). LNC-4's = have proven to be a bad risk thought the years, not LNC-2's or LNC-3's, = that's why your rates are high! And that's why LNC-2's are low.=20 This is a great forum and there are many very experienced pilots and = builders here, and some of us fly past Vne.. And do aerobatics and close = formation, and race.=20 If you can't understand how a four place, high risk, very costly, = pressurized experimental aircraft has a very high premium, you should = consult an insurance broker and ask how they calculative the premium. I = would bet it's not from a post on the internet.=20 Note: This was all written with a nice tone. Randy Stuart LNC-2 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: vtailjeff@aol.com=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:33 PM Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list Mark, Very well said-- and I might add that LOBO has been trying for over a = year now to get insurance at affordable rates for members-- but this = mission depends on reducing the accidents whcih in turn on changing = people's belief systems about risk and safety. If you post something = that smacks of blatant risky behaviour do not be surprised if someone on = the list makes a remark about it. Many of the folks who have held such = beliefs are generally low time/ low experience folks.Unfortunately, some = of them are no longer with us--and it is not because they quit the list. = Many of the commenters are the opposite. This is a great forum to learn = if one is willing to accept constructive criticism from some very = experienced folks in the industry.=20 On another note, I have been speaking to an insurance company that = wants us to help them identify who are the good insurance risks. Those = owners would hopefully qualify for a preferred rate. If you are = intrerested contanct me privately. Best Regards--have a safe and happy holiday season, Jeff Edwards President, LOBO -----Original Message----- From: Mark Sletten To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:40 am Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list Jim, Email is a terrible medium for communicating tone. It=E2=80=99s = difficult to accurately project and/or discern emotion via email. Often = a writer intends to be sarcastic in a humorous way, but it is received = as demeaning and derogatory. Some of us military types grew up in a flying environment where = one=E2=80=99s skills and judgment were under constant review. Public = post-flight reviews (to give you an idea of the mindset, we called them = =E2=80=98critiques=E2=80=99) were mandatory, and all aspects of a = mission were evaluated for mission effectiveness and safety. For = training missions, the guiding principle was (still is I=E2=80=99m sure) = =E2=80=98safety of flight is paramount.=E2=80=99 For operational = missions crews might assume higher risks to get the job done, but = compromising safety for a training mission was , um, not in accordance = with official guidance. Despite our government=E2=80=99s current effort to the contrary, you = can=E2=80=99t write a rule book that prohibits EVERY sort of dangerous = behavior/mindset/inclination. This, of course, is especially true in an = organization where such behaviors/mindsets/inclinations would be = advantageous, depending on the mission. There are many things you can do = with a USAF aircraft that, while not specifically forbidden, would be = considered dangerous -- even negligent -- on a training mission. The = problem is you can=E2=80=99t simply throw away a pilot you have spent = millions training for behaving stupidly on a single flight. And = sanctioning via official means (reprimands, courts-martial, etc.) = usually kills any chance of promotion, so you may as well count on a = person so sanctioned to punch out (of the service) at the earliest = opportunity. Understanding this, the leadership chooses to use peer = pressure to modify behavior rather than more official means. It turns = out the peer pressure idea works better anyway. In a community so inculcated with the =E2=80=98safety = culture,=E2=80=99 engaging in behavior not officially prohibited, but = considered unsafe, was grounds for public humiliation during a = post-flight critique with the crews of all aircraft involved, and maybe = even during a monthly safety meeting in front of the entire wing. Such = public humiliation served several purposes including (but not limited = to): - It provides a teaching moment to show how easy it is to make bad = decisions - Those experiencing such public humiliation rarely repeat the = offending behavior - Those observing learned the hazard of engaging in such behavior I don=E2=80=99t bring all this up to suggest ritual public humiliation = as a means to make all Lancair pilots identical automatons of safety. I = only wish to point out that while public rebukes may come across as = pompous personal puffing (and some may be), often it is simply a matter = of habit =E2=80=93 and old habits are hard to break.=20 My suggestion is for both sides to attempt tone deafness. Those = posting their disapproval of others should make every attempt to post = opinion backed by fact and data, but absent the vitriol. If the subject = behavior/idea/mindset is heinous enough it will speak for itself. Humor = is often an effective tool to use in such cases, but beware the problems = noted above. If you want to be funny, be sure it=E2=80=99s funny and not = mean spirited. You might find them trite and silly, but adding an = emoticon to your text can be an effective means of deflecting hurt = feelings. (I can=E2=80=99t wait to see how some of these guys react to = this one=E2=80=A6 :-P) Those on the receiving end of a critique should assume the best of = intentions on the part of the poster. Speaking for myself, if I offer an = opinion about another=E2=80=99s judgment or behavior, I do so with the = sole purpose of avoiding injury or bent airplanes. My guess is the vast = majority of those posting negatively have the same goal. In other words, = as difficult as it may be, when you=E2=80=99re getting spanked try to = get the message and ignore the tone. One thing I would point out to those who truly have the best of = intentions (improving safety) when critiquing another: If your message = bounces off the defensive wall sure to go up after you deride his/her = ego, your best intention to =E2=80=98help=E2=80=99 a person will come to = naught, because even the best, most obvious message is wasted if the = receiver doesn=E2=80=99t get it Even if everyone completely disregards this rambling missive, Jim, = please don=E2=80=99t quit the forum because you are unhappy with the = tone. I have learned some very important lessons while observing the = (often unpleasant) dissection of another person=E2=80=99s behavior. = I=E2=80=99ve learned some of the most important lessons of my life after = being shown (always unpleasant) how I=E2=80=99d behaved stupidly or = irresponsibly. Yes, it hurt, but I am forever grateful to the @$$holes = who pointed out the error of my ways. Respectfully, Mark Sletten From: Jim Scales [mailto:joscales98@hotmail.com]=20 Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:52 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Tone on list In my opinion the tone on the list recently, in a couple of the = threads, has gotten pretty abrasive. Rather than abandon a resource = that I have utilized for a long time, I thought I would make a couple of = comments. Seems that every so often there are those who feel the need to puff = themselves up and put others down. In my opinion it really defeats the = purpose of the list and turns other listers off. I'm guessing it also = greatly inhibits the willingness of a lot of people to participate. After about 3 back and forth attempts to change the opponent's point = of view it would seem that agreeing to disagree would be the adult thing = to do. When all is said and done it really is each individual's right = to make his or her own decisions. =20 To summarize, I participate because I want to be the best, safest, = smartest pilot I can be. I believe most of us hang around for the same = reasons. It doesn=E2=80=99t do me or any other lister any good if the = tone that is used to present the information prevents the information = from being received. ------=_NextPart_000_0058_01CA7DB9.B8CDD780 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BF
Well, here we go = again.... The=20 sky is falling.
 
With the = spirit of the=20 "Tone on the list", again, anyone that said they have flown beyond Vne = is=20 attacked.
Blaming us for = your insurance=20 rates because I said I have flown past Vne? Now you've added we must be = "Low=20 time / Low experienced folks".. Really????
 
Year after year = after year=20 after year I've never had any problem binding a full policy for my = Lancair, for=20 a very reasonable premium, nor has anyone else I know with an LNC-2. = LNC-4's on=20 the other hand, the Lancair's that do seem to cause many fatals, is hard = to=20 insure and expensive.
And you blame that = on a post=20 on the LML??? Do you have any proof what so ever backing this = extraordinary=20 claim? Are all the underwriters reading this forum and raising LNC-4 = rates=20 because someone with an LNC-2 said he likes to go fast?? No wait, it was = "=20 blatant risky behavior"...  
My rates have gone = down....=20 Hummm.. I guess I must be a "Good risk"..
 
This is not = constructive=20 criticism, this down right rude and abusive to talk that way about other = pilots.=20 This is my choice, not yours, I don't believe I'm=20 "risky". 
I don't raise your = rates (=20 which is a ridiculous statement ). LNC-4's have proven to be a bad risk = thought=20 the years, not LNC-2's or LNC-3's, that's why your rates are high! = And=20 that's why LNC-2's are low.
 
This is a great = forum and=20 there are many very experienced pilots and builders here, and some of us = fly=20 past Vne.. And do aerobatics and close formation, and race.=20
If you can't = understand how a=20 four place, high risk, very costly, pressurized experimental = aircraft has a=20 very high premium, you should consult an insurance broker and ask how = they=20 calculative the premium. I would bet it's not from a post on the = internet.=20
 
Note: This was all = written=20 with a nice tone.
 
Randy=20 Stuart
LNC-2
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 vtailjeff@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, = 2009 1:33=20 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on = list

Mark,
 
Very well said-- and I might add that LOBO has been trying for = over a=20 year now to get insurance at affordable rates for members-- but this = mission=20 depends on reducing the accidents whcih in turn on changing people's = belief=20 systems about risk and safety. If you post something that smacks of = blatant=20 risky behaviour do not be surprised if someone on the list makes a = remark=20 about it. Many of the folks who have held such beliefs are generally = low time/=20 low experience folks.Unfortunately, some of them are no longer with = us--and it=20 is not because they quit the list.  Many of the commenters are = the=20 opposite. This is a great forum to learn if one is willing to accept=20 constructive criticism from some very experienced folks in the = industry.=20
On another note, I have been speaking to an insurance company = that wants=20 us to help them identify who are the good insurance risks.=20 Those owners would hopefully qualify for a preferred rate. = If=20  you are intrerested contanct me privately.
 
Best Regards--have a safe and happy holiday season,
 
Jeff Edwards
President, LOBO

-----Original=20 Message-----
From: Mark Sletten <mwsletten@gmail.com>
To:=20 lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:40 am
Subject: = [LML]=20 Re: Tone on list

Jim,
 
Email=20 is a terrible medium for communicating tone. It=E2=80=99s difficult to = accurately=20 project and/or discern emotion via email. Often a writer intends to be = sarcastic in a humorous way, but it is received as demeaning and=20 derogatory.
 
Some=20 of us military types grew up in a flying environment where = one=E2=80=99s skills and=20 judgment were under constant review. Public post-flight reviews (to = give you=20 an idea of the mindset, we called them =E2=80=98critiques=E2=80=99) = were mandatory, and all=20 aspects of a mission were evaluated for mission effectiveness and = safety. For=20 training missions, the guiding principle was (still is I=E2=80=99m = sure) =E2=80=98safety of=20 flight is paramount.=E2=80=99 For operational missions crews might = assume higher risks=20 to get the job done, but compromising safety for a training mission = was , um,=20 not in accordance with official guidance.
 
Despite=20 our government=E2=80=99s current effort to the contrary, you = can=E2=80=99t write a rule book=20 that prohibits EVERY sort of dangerous behavior/mindset/inclination. = This, of=20 course, is especially true in an organization where such=20 behaviors/mindsets/inclinations would be advantageous, depending on = the=20 mission. There are many things you can do with a USAF aircraft that, = while not=20 specifically forbidden, would be considered dangerous -- even = negligent -- on=20 a training mission. The problem is you can=E2=80=99t simply throw away = a pilot you=20 have spent millions training for behaving stupidly on a single flight. = And=20 sanctioning via official means (reprimands, courts-martial, etc.) = usually=20 kills any chance of promotion, so you may as well count on a person so = sanctioned to punch out (of the service) at the earliest opportunity.=20 Understanding this, the leadership chooses to use peer pressure to = modify=20 behavior rather than more official means. It turns out the peer = pressure idea=20 works better anyway.
 
In=20 a  community so inculcated with the =E2=80=98safety = culture,=E2=80=99 engaging in=20 behavior not officially prohibited, but considered unsafe, was grounds = for=20 public humiliation during a post-flight critique with the crews of all = aircraft involved, and maybe even during a monthly safety meeting in = front of=20 the entire wing. Such public humiliation served several purposes = including=20 (but not limited to):
 
-=20 It provides a teaching moment to show how easy it is to make bad=20 decisions
-=20 Those experiencing such public humiliation rarely repeat the offending = behavior
-=20 Those observing learned the hazard of engaging in such = behavior
 
I=20 don=E2=80=99t bring all this up to suggest ritual public humiliation = as a means to=20 make all Lancair pilots identical automatons of safety. I only wish to = point=20 out that while public rebukes may come across as pompous personal = puffing (and=20 some may be), often it is simply a matter of habit =E2=80=93 and old = habits are hard=20 to break.
 
My=20 suggestion is for both sides to attempt tone deafness. Those posting = their=20 disapproval of others should make every attempt to post opinion backed = by fact=20 and data, but absent the vitriol. If the subject behavior/idea/mindset = is=20 heinous enough it will speak for itself. Humor is often an effective = tool to=20 use in such cases, but beware the problems noted above. If you want to = be=20 funny, be sure it=E2=80=99s funny and not mean spirited. You might = find them trite and=20 silly, but adding an emoticon to your text can be an effective means of = deflecting hurt feelings. (I can=E2=80=99t wait to see how some of = these guys react to=20 this one=E2=80=A6 :-P)
 
Those=20 on the receiving end of a critique should assume the best of = intentions on the=20 part of the poster. Speaking for myself, if I offer an opinion about = another=E2=80=99s=20 judgment or behavior, I do so with the sole purpose of avoiding injury = or bent=20 airplanes. My guess is the vast majority of those posting negatively = have the=20 same goal. In other words, as difficult as it may be, when = you=E2=80=99re getting=20 spanked try to get the message and ignore the tone.
 
One=20 thing I would point out to those who truly have the best of intentions = (improving safety) when critiquing another: If your message bounces = off the=20 defensive wall sure to go up after you deride his/her ego, your best = intention=20 to =E2=80=98help=E2=80=99 a person will come to naught, because even = the best, most obvious=20 message is wasted if the receiver doesn=E2=80=99t get it
 
Even=20 if everyone completely disregards this rambling missive, Jim, please = don=E2=80=99t=20 quit the forum because you are unhappy with the tone. I have learned = some very=20 important lessons while observing the (often unpleasant) dissection of = another=20 person=E2=80=99s behavior. I=E2=80=99ve learned some of the most = important lessons of my life=20 after being shown (always unpleasant) how I=E2=80=99d behaved stupidly = or=20 irresponsibly. Yes, it hurt, but I am forever grateful to the @$$holes = who=20 pointed out the error of my ways.
 
Respectfully,
 
Mark=20 Sletten
 
From: Jim = Scales [mailto:joscales98@hotmail.com= ]=20
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:52 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sub= ject:=20 Tone on list
 
In=20 my opinion the tone on the list recently, in a couple of the=20 threads, has gotten pretty abrasive.  Rather than abandon a = resource=20 that I have utilized for a long time, I thought I would make a couple = of=20 comments.
 
Seems=20 that every so often there are those who feel the need to = puff=20 themselves up and put others down.  In my opinion it really = defeats the=20 purpose of the list and turns other listers off.  I'm guessing it = also=20 greatly inhibits the willingness of a lot of people to=20 participate.
 
After=20 about 3 back and forth attempts to change the opponent's point of view = it=20 would seem that agreeing to disagree would be the adult thing to = do. =20 When all is said and done it really is each individual's right to=20 make his or her own decisions. 
 
To=20 summarize, I participate because I want to be the best, safest, = smartest pilot=20 I can be.  I believe most of us hang around for the same = reasons. =20 It doesn=E2=80=99t do me or any other lister any good if the tone that = is used to=20 present the information prevents the information from being = received. =20
------=_NextPart_000_0058_01CA7DB9.B8CDD780--