X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:33:55 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from blu0-omc3-s20.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.95] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c3) with ESMTP id 4026195 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:23:51 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.116.95; envelope-from=randystuart@hotmail.com Received: from BLU0-SMTP14 ([65.55.116.72]) by blu0-omc3-s20.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:23:18 -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-SMTP14.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:23:15 -0800 From: "Randy" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Tone on list X-Original-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:21:04 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0092_01CA7F0B.05514360" 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: 17 Dec 2009 19:23:15.0773 (UTC) FILETIME=[61C186D0:01CA7F4E] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0092_01CA7F0B.05514360 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mr. Edwards,=20 Since you don't have any problem quoting facts and stats (and playing = LML police ), I will offer you the same opportunity I have offered the = few other LML posters that seem to feel it's their mission in life to = demand their will over others. To: SHOW ME THE FACTS!=20 How many Lancair's have come apart in the air???? NONE!! FACT!! = Lancair's have been exceed published Vne since their conception. FACT!! Lancair is NOT the builder!! Lancair's ARE certified as "Special = Experimental", as such, the BUILDER determines the numbers. Lancair's = are NOT built under a "Type Certificate", and as such, the FAA does not = regulate "Special Certificates" and same as they do "Type Certificates". = FACT!! The vast majority of Lancair accidents and fatals were from Stalls, = Spins, Engine Failure, Known Bad Weather, bad maintenance. FACT!! I'm sure Lynn Farnsworth and Lee Beal ( just to name a few out of many ) = would be surprised to know they are Low Time / Low Experienced pilots. = And outlaws.=20 And for that matter, you have no FACTS what anyone's time, ratings, or = experience are. Mine or anyone else's....... SUICIDAL??? SHOW ME THE FACTS!!!!!! You claim you're an investigator, = you must know. You've got a lot of nerve calling someone you've never = met Suicidal. Seriously.=20 The FACT is, these ARE only your OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS, not FACTS. = Totally baseless.=20 Lancair's are much harder to fly, and stay ahead of, then a Cessna. No = one deputes this. They will fall out of the sky fast if you get them to = slow, known fact. 10,000 hours and 20 ratings does not make you a = Lancair pilot. So, it would stand to reason if any person can purchase = any aircraft, with no restrictions, there will be some that bite off = more then they can chew. Aerostar's (for example) have killed many for = the same reasons. High performance is not free, as the performance gets = bigger the envelope gets smaller. FACT! It's funny how the few LML police come out and spew their opinions then = mask these opinions as facts and statistics. Adding to that, if there's = someone that flys outside of the "LML police" comfort zone they must be = low time / low experienced pilots. Again, fact-less opinions.=20 We don't tell you how to fly, so why are you (LML police) telling all of = us how to fly? Are you next going to demand that all the Reno racers = slow down? Then the Red Bull racers? What's next? And when did it become your business to "Forward" anyone's emails to = anyone else? That just might get you a law suit.=20 Randy Stuart LNC-2 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: vtailjeff@aol.com=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 6:37 AM Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list Mr. Stuart, In reading my post and your post it seems you have misquoted me more = than once. I did not claim that these LML posts drive our insurance = rates or that your claim to fly beyond Vne affects our insurance rates. = What I said is that our insurance rates are driven by our accident rate = and that we need to change pilot behaviour [for the better].=20 You have spent many posts defending your [IMHO suicidal] piloting = behaviour in flying beyond Vne. I have to ask myself why does this = person cling to this belief in the face of overwhelming arguments to the = contrary. In other discussions with other pilots like yourself on this = forum after a little research I have almost always found the pilot to be = a private pilot with very little total flight time who "believes" that = something they are doing that is patently dangerous is completely safe = and legal. One poor chap is now dead doing exactly what he thought was = safe. Look up the LML archives for Shannon Knoepflin.=20 Personally, I would not gloat about the Legacy safety record.The = Legacy fleet is not far behind the IV's in total accidents. Fact: There = have been 8 reported Lancair accidents this year. 2 each IVP and = Legacy. The other four accidents occurred to 200/300 series aircraft. = What has happened to the IVP fleet in regard to insurance will happen to = the Legacy fleet--unless we as a community turn this around. Fact: Over = 40 per cent of all our accidents occur to pilots with less than 100 = hours in make and model. Fact: Over 55% of all Lancair accidents occur = to private pilots--while less than 40% of all pilots are private pilots. = Is flying beyond Vne risky?--IMHO as a CFI and a DPE and aircraft = accident investigator--yes. Its also illegal per 14 cfr 91.9. If you = think your rates are low and flying beyond Vne is okay then "man up" and = send these posts to your insurance company and see how low they stay. = If you think flying beyond Vne is safe and legal then "man up" and send = this stuff to your local FSDO. They might be interested in talking to = you.=20 As I stated in the last post, I and a few others have worked our = tails off for the last 18 months forming LOBO, developing a training = program and getting the insurance industry behind us. We have also been = working with the FAA to improve our Lancair safety record. Please do not = screw this up for us and auger in any time soon. OBTW--after Shannon's fatal several of us contacted the NTSB and = forwarded these typse of emails to the them. You can read about it in = the NTSB report.=20 Best Regards, Jeff Edwards President LOBO changing one mind at a time. =20 -----Original Message----- From: Randy To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Wed, Dec 16, 2009 9:02 am Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list Well, here we go again.... The sky is falling. 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_0092_01CA7F0B.05514360 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BF
Mr. Edwards,=20
 
Since you don't = have any=20 problem quoting facts and stats (and playing LML police ), I will offer = you the=20 same opportunity I have offered the few other LML posters that seem to = feel it's=20 their mission in life to demand their will over others.=20 To:
SHOW ME THE FACTS! =
How many Lancair's = have come=20 apart in the air???? NONE!! FACT!! Lancair's have been = exceed published Vne=20 since their conception. FACT!!
Lancair is NOT the = builder!!=20 Lancair's ARE certified as "Special Experimental", as such, the BUILDER=20 determines the numbers. Lancair's are NOT built under a "Type = Certificate", and=20 as such, the FAA does not regulate "Special Certificates" and same as = they do=20 "Type Certificates". FACT!!
The vast majority = of Lancair=20 accidents and fatals were from Stalls, Spins, Engine Failure, Known Bad = Weather,=20 bad maintenance. FACT!!
 
I'm sure Lynn = Farnsworth and=20 Lee Beal ( just to name a few out of many ) would be surprised to know = they are=20 Low Time / Low Experienced pilots. And = outlaws. 
And for that = matter, you have=20 no FACTS what anyone's time, ratings, or experience are. Mine or anyone=20 else's.......
 
SUICIDAL??? SHOW = ME THE=20 FACTS!!!!!! You claim you're an investigator, you must know. You've got = a lot of=20 nerve calling someone you've never met Suicidal. Seriously.=20
 
The FACT is, these = ARE only=20 your OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS, not FACTS. Totally baseless.=20
 
 
Lancair's are much = harder to=20 fly, and stay ahead of, then a Cessna. No one deputes this. They will = fall out=20 of the sky fast if you get them to slow, known fact. 10,000 hours and 20 = ratings=20 does not make you a Lancair pilot. So, it would stand to reason if any = person=20 can purchase any aircraft, with no restrictions, there will be some that = bite=20 off more then they can chew. Aerostar's (for example) have killed many = for the=20 same reasons. High performance is not free, as the performance gets = bigger the=20 envelope gets smaller. FACT!
 
It's funny how the = few LML=20 police come out and spew their opinions then mask these = opinions as=20 facts and statistics. Adding to that, if there's someone that flys = outside=20 of the "LML police" comfort zone they must be low time / low=20 experienced pilots. Again, fact-less opinions. =
 
We don't tell you = how to fly,=20 so why are you (LML police) telling all of us how to fly? Are you next = going to=20 demand that all the Reno racers slow down? Then the Red Bull = racers? What's=20 next?
 
And when did it = become your=20 business to "Forward" anyone's emails to anyone else? That just might = get you a=20 law suit.
 
Randy=20 Stuart
LNC-2
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 vtailjeff@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 17, = 2009 6:37=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on = list

Mr. Stuart,
 
In reading my post and your post it seems you have misquoted me = more than=20 once. I did not claim that these LML posts drive our insurance rates = or that=20 your claim to fly beyond Vne affects our insurance rates. What I said = is that=20 our insurance rates are driven by our accident rate and that we need=20 to change pilot behaviour [for the better].
 
You have spent many posts defending your [IMHO suicidal] piloting = behaviour in flying beyond Vne. I have to ask myself why does = this person=20 cling to this belief in the face of overwhelming arguments to the = contrary. In=20 other discussions with other pilots like yourself on this forum = after a=20 little research I have almost always found the pilot to be a private = pilot=20 with very little total flight time who "believes" that something they = are=20 doing that is patently dangerous is completely safe and legal. One = poor chap=20 is now dead doing exactly what he thought was safe. Look up the LML = archives=20 for Shannon Knoepflin.
 
Personally, I would not gloat about the Legacy safety record.The = Legacy=20 fleet is not far behind the IV's in total accidents. Fact: =  There=20 have been 8 reported Lancair accidents this year.  2 each = IVP and=20 Legacy. The other four accidents occurred to 200/300 series aircraft. = What has=20 happened to the IVP fleet in regard to insurance will happen to the = Legacy=20 fleet--unless we as a community turn this around. Fact: Over 40 per = cent of=20 all our accidents occur to pilots with less than 100 hours in make and = model.=20 Fact: Over 55% of all Lancair accidents occur to private pilots--while = less=20 than 40% of all pilots are private pilots.
 
Is flying beyond Vne risky?--IMHO as a CFI and a DPE and aircraft = accident investigator--yes. Its also illegal per 14 cfr 91.9. If you = think=20 your rates are low and flying beyond Vne is okay then "man = up" and=20  send these posts to your insurance company and see how low they = stay. If=20 you think flying beyond Vne is safe and legal then "man up" and send = this=20 stuff to your local FSDO. They might be interested in talking to you. =
 
As I stated in the last post,  I and a few others have = worked our=20 tails off for the last 18 months forming LOBO, developing a training = program=20 and getting the insurance industry behind us. We have also been = working with=20 the FAA to improve our Lancair safety record. Please do not screw this = up for=20 us and auger in any time soon.
 
OBTW--after Shannon's fatal several of us contacted the NTSB and=20 forwarded these typse of emails to the them. You can read about it in = the NTSB=20 report.
 
Best Regards,
 
Jeff Edwards
President LOBO
changing one mind at a time.
 



 
-----Original=20 Message-----
From: Randy <randystuart@hotmail.com>
To:=20 lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Wed, Dec 16, 2009 9:02 am
Subject: = [LML] Re:=20 Tone on list

Well, here we go = again....=20 The 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=20 insurance rates because I said I have flown past Vne? Now you've added = we must=20 be "Low 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,=20 for a very reasonable premium, nor has anyone else I know with an = LNC-2.=20 LNC-4's on the other hand, the Lancair's that do seem to cause many = fatals, is=20 hard to 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=20 pilots. 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=20 thought the years, not LNC-2's or LNC-3's, that's why your rates = are=20 high! And 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=20 a four place, high risk, very costly, pressurized experimental = aircraft=20 has a very high premium, you should consult an insurance broker and = ask how=20 they calculative the premium. I would bet it's not from a post on the=20 internet.
 
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=20 time/ low experience folks.Unfortunately, some of them are no longer = with=20 us--and it is not because they quit the list.  Many of the = commenters=20 are the 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=20 wants 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: = lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: = Tue,=20 Dec 15, 2009 10:40 am
Subject: [LML] 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=20 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.=20 For training missions, the guiding principle was (still is = I=E2=80=99m sure) =E2=80=98safety=20 of flight is paramount.=E2=80=99 For operational missions crews = might assume higher=20 risks to get the job done, but compromising safety for a training = mission=20 was , um, 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,=20 of 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=20 not specifically forbidden, would be considered dangerous -- even = negligent=20 -- on a training mission. The problem is you can=E2=80=99t simply = throw away a pilot=20 you have spent millions training for behaving stupidly on a single = flight.=20 And sanctioning via official means (reprimands, courts-martial, = etc.)=20 usually kills any chance of promotion, so you may as well count on a = person=20 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=20 idea 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=20 aircraft involved, and maybe even during a monthly safety meeting in = front=20 of the entire wing. Such public humiliation served several purposes=20 including (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=20 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=20 (and some may be), often it is simply a matter of habit =E2=80=93 = and old habits are=20 hard 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=20 fact and data, but absent the vitriol. If the subject = behavior/idea/mindset=20 is heinous enough it will speak for itself. Humor is often an = effective tool=20 to 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=20 and silly, but adding an emoticon to your text can be an effective means = of=20 deflecting hurt feelings. (I can=E2=80=99t wait to see how some of = these guys react=20 to this one=E2=80=A6 :-P)
 
Those=20 on the receiving end of a critique should assume the best of = intentions on=20 the part of the poster. Speaking for myself, if I offer an opinion = about=20 another=E2=80=99s judgment or behavior, I do so with the sole = purpose of avoiding=20 injury or bent airplanes. My guess is the vast majority of those = posting=20 negatively have the same goal. In other words, as difficult as it = may be,=20 when you=E2=80=99re getting spanked try to get the message and = ignore the=20 tone.
 
One=20 thing I would point out to those who truly have the best of = intentions=20 (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 to =E2=80=98help=E2=80=99 a person will come to naught, = because even the best,=20 most obvious 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=20 very important lessons while observing the (often unpleasant) = dissection of=20 another person=E2=80=99s behavior. I=E2=80=99ve learned some of the = most important lessons=20 of my life 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=20 resource that I have utilized for a long time, I thought I would = make a=20 couple of 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=20 pilot I can be.  I believe most of us hang around for the same=20 reasons.  It doesn=E2=80=99t do me or any other lister any good = if the tone=20 that is used to present the information prevents the information = from being=20 received. 
------=_NextPart_000_0092_01CA7F0B.05514360--