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’s 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That's in relation to a letter the FAA sent out and then rescinded.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 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 -----
>
> 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 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.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’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
>
> 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 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.