Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:18:44 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-4027596@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=74.125.78.26; envelope-from=freyas.favored@gmail.com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=wDB+TmfJknH+Iv+IoT3IogTokPliWjN44aFw8uoQFlwGfEBtt4GIRPaKNLHyuV8uts
         YDPO8h/+uiVDufaB9wyoBKAYkgjJjzsU0T6sGReJtpZHG0i6bDnEPb1WcX7UJBJR6sKP
         mVb3Z7mtA+yB6/ZjEfT7mTJL56wO/s3w2cZRk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <list-4025718@logan.com>
References: <list-4025718@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Tone on list
From: Kailani <freyas.favored@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I still have yet to see anything that says a Lancair has crashed due
to exceeding VNE.  I'm not saying it CAN'T happen, I'm just wondering
why you keep sticking to this when that doesn't seem to be an ongoing
issue.

The most recent thing I could find was this:

The FAA contends that the uniqueness of each aircraft=92s handling,
stability, and stall characteristics exposes pilots to additional risk
during slow-speed operations near the ground. Sixty percent of the
accidents over the last four years were due to loss of control with
that same percentage happening in the traffic pattern.

That's in relation to a letter the FAA sent out and then rescinded.
You should be familiar with it since someone from LOBO contacted them
anonymously.


http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-10-08_lancair.asp

Obviously there are dangers.  Noone disputes that.  But it seems to me
the bigger problem is people having trouble flying slow.  I find that
funny since there has been more than once when I was with Randy and he
told whoever we were with that he had to speed up or he was going to
stall (when flying with planes much slower than his).

Kristy

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 6:37 AM,  <vtailjeff@aol.com> wrote:
> 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 t=
hat
> 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=A0change pilot behaviour=A0[for the better].
>
> You have spent many posts defending your [IMHO suicidal] piloting behavio=
ur
> in flying beyond Vne.=A0I have to ask myself why does this person cling t=
o
> this belief in the face of overwhelming arguments to the contrary. In oth=
er
> discussions with=A0other pilots like yourself on this forum after a littl=
e
> 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 doin=
g
> 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.=A0Fact: =A0There hav=
e been
> 8 reported Lancair accidents this year.=A0=A02 each IVP and Legacy. The o=
ther
> 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 accide=
nts
> 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 acciden=
t
> investigator--yes. Its also illegal per 14 cfr 91.9. If you think your ra=
tes
> are low and flying beyond Vne is okay then "man up"=A0and =A0send these p=
osts to
> your insurance company and see how low they stay. If you think flying bey=
ond
> Vne is safe and legal then "man up" and send this stuff to your local FSD=
O.
> They might be interested in talking to you.
>
> As I stated in the last post, =A0I 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 forwarde=
d
> these typse of emails to the them. You can read about it in the NTSB repo=
rt.
>
> 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=A0the 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 t=
his
> 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 t=
alk
> that way about other pilots. This is my choice, not yours, I don't believ=
e
> I'm "risky".
> I don't raise your rates ( which is a ridiculous statement ). LNC-4's hav=
e
> proven to be a bad risk thought the years, not LNC-2's or=A0LNC-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=A0do aerobatics and=A0cl=
ose
> formation, and race.
> If you can't understand how a four place, high risk, very
> costly,=A0pressurized experimental aircraft has a very high premium, you
> should consult an insurance broker and ask how they calculative the premi=
um.
> 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 -----
>
> From: vtailjeff@aol.com
> To: lml@lancaironline.net
> 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 yea=
r
> now to get insurance at affordable rates for members-- but this mission
> depends on reducing the accidents whcih in turn on changing people's beli=
ef
> systems about risk and safety. If you post something that smacks of blata=
nt
> 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. =A0Many of the commenters a=
re
> 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=A0owners=A0=
would
> hopefully qualify for a preferred rate. If =A0you are intrerested contanc=
t 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.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=92s difficult to
> accurately project and/or discern emotion via email. Often a writer inten=
ds
> 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=92s s=
kills
> and judgment were under constant review. Public post-flight reviews (to g=
ive
> you an idea of the mindset, we called them =91critiques=92) were mandator=
y, and
> all aspects of a mission were evaluated for mission effectiveness and
> safety. For training missions, the guiding principle was (still is I=92m =
sure)
> =91safety of flight is paramount.=92 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=92s current effort to the contrary, you can=92t wr=
ite 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 prob=
lem
> is you can=92t 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 =A0community so inculcated with the =91safety culture,=92 engaging i=
n
> behavior not officially prohibited, but considered unsafe, was grounds fo=
r
> public humiliation during a post-flight critique with the crews of all
> aircraft involved, and maybe even during a monthly safety meeting in fron=
t
> 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 decisi=
ons
> - Those experiencing such public humiliation rarely repeat the offending
> behavior
> - Those observing learned the hazard of engaging in such behavior
>
> I don=92t bring all this up to suggest ritual public humiliation as a mea=
ns to
> make all Lancair pilots identical automatons of safety. I only wish to po=
int
> out that while public rebukes may come across as pompous personal puffing
> (and some may be), often it is simply a matter of habit =96 and old habit=
s 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 bac=
ked
> by fact and data, but absent the vitriol. If the subject
> behavior/idea/mindset is heinous enough it will speak for itself. Humor i=
s
> often an effective tool to use in such cases, but beware the problems not=
ed
> above. If you want to be funny, be sure it=92s funny and not mean spirite=
d.
> 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=92t wait to see=
 how
> some of these guys react to this one=85 :-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=92s judgment or behavior, I do so with the sole pur=
pose
> of avoiding injury or bent airplanes. My guess is the vast majority of th=
ose
> posting negatively have the same goal. In other words, as difficult as it
> may be, when you=92re getting spanked try to get the message and ignore t=
he
> tone.
>
> One thing I would point out to those who truly have the best of intention=
s
> (improving safety) when critiquing another: If your message bounces off t=
he
> defensive wall sure to go up after you deride his/her ego, your best
> intention to =91help=92 a person will come to naught, because even the be=
st,
> most obvious message is wasted if the receiver doesn=92t get it
>
> Even if everyone completely disregards this rambling missive, Jim, please
> don=92t quit the forum because you are unhappy with the tone. I have lear=
ned
> some very important lessons while observing the (often unpleasant)
> dissection of another person=92s behavior. I=92ve learned some of the mos=
t
> important lessons of my life after being shown (always unpleasant) how I=
=92d
> behaved stupidly or irresponsibly. Yes, it hurt, but I am forever gratefu=
l
> to the @$$holes who pointed out the error of my ways.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Mark Sletten
>
> From: Jim Scales [mailto:joscales98@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:52 PM
> To: lml@lancaironline.net
> Subject: Tone on list
>
> In my opinion the=A0tone on the list recently, in a couple of the threads=
,=A0has
> gotten pretty abrasive.=A0 Rather than abandon a resource that I have uti=
lized
> for a long time, I thought I would make a couple of comments.
>
> Seems that every so often=A0there are those who=A0feel the need to puff
> themselves up and put others down.=A0 In my opinion it really defeats the
> purpose of the list and turns other listers off.=A0 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 v=
iew
> 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=A0=
his
> or her=A0own decisions.
>
> To summarize, I participate because I want to be the best, safest, smarte=
st
> pilot I can be.=A0 I believe most of us hang around for the same reasons.=
=A0 It
> doesn=92t do me or any other lister any good if the tone that is used to
> present the information prevents the information from being received.