|
To: The LML police,
Please open the attachment and
read it all. These are not all the NTSB reports to date but a very detailed list
of Lancair accidents from 1989 to 2005.
After reading this could you
please report back the LML, pointing out all, if any, Lancair's that came apart
from exceeding Vne?
I did find one that had
a bonded surface on a wing come off, caused by poor building, but landed
safely.
Again, these facts fully
support myself and others. Not the opinions and assumptions of the LML police.
Lancair's ARE safe!! They must
be built and flow with ability and respect. All the evidence proves this. Stop
scaring people!
Randy
Stuart
LNC-2
----- Original Message -----
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].
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.
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.
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.
Best Regards,
Jeff Edwards
President LOBO
changing one mind at a time.
-----Original
Message----- From: Randy <randystuart@hotmail.com> 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.
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.
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"...
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".
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.
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.
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.
Note: This was all written
with a nice tone.
Randy
Stuart
LNC-2
----- Original Message -----
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.
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 < mwsletten@gmail.com> To: lml@lancaironline.netSent: Tue,
Dec 15, 2009 10:40 am Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list
Jim,
Email
is a terrible medium for communicating tone. It’s 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’s skills and
judgment were under constant review. Public post-flight reviews (to give you
an idea of the mindset, we called them ‘critiques’) 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’m sure) ‘safety
of flight is paramount.’ 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’s current effort to the contrary, you can’t 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’t 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 ‘safety culture,’ 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’t 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 – and old habits are
hard to break.
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’s 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’t wait to see how some of these guys react
to this one… :-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’s 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’re 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 ‘help’ a person will come to naught, because even the best,
most obvious message is wasted if the receiver doesn’t get it
Even
if everyone completely disregards this rambling missive, Jim, please don’t
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’s behavior. I’ve learned some of the most important lessons
of my life after being shown (always unpleasant) how I’d 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
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.
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’t do me or any other lister any good if the tone
that is used to present the information prevents the information from being
received.
|