X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:37:21 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from blu0-omc3-s37.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.112] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c4) with ESMTP id 4032278 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:35:48 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.116.112; envelope-from=randystuart@hotmail.com Received: from BLU0-SMTP85 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s37.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:35:13 -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-SMTP85.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:35:09 -0800 From: "Randy" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Tone on list X-Original-Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:35:13 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006B_01CA8160.1D10BC40" 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: 20 Dec 2009 18:35:09.0526 (UTC) FILETIME=[28A86F60:01CA81A3] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_006B_01CA8160.1D10BC40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mark,=20 For the most part I don't disagree with you. And I've said many of the = same points you have. The Lancair designers, I'm sure, were very = conservative with their numbers. And for a very good reason.=20 I never said I fly past Vne all the time, I said I have and do on = occasion in the right conditions. I also have not lobbied to change the = published numbers, I do think they are very safe and well within the = limits of this aircraft. My proof and statements concerning Lancair's = commonly exceeding Vne without coming apart is to refute the ridicules = statements by the LML police. The sky isn't falling.=20 I'm not the one calling people suicidal, or wish them death, blaming = them for insurance rates, forwarding emails to the FAA, etc. I didn't = start this thread, but I have no problem defending it.=20 Scaring people with misinformation is the problem. Not stating the truth = is the problem. Disregarding all the statistics and evidence is the = problem.=20 All Lancair's were designed safe and should be flown within the = published limits, I agree. But they have been flown past these limits, = numerous times, and not come apart. This is irrefutable. Since the LML = police insist that the published Vne is the point of distruction, I = asked for one example, one statistic, one shred of evidence to this = claim. No one has yet posted this evidence. And the relationship between = my post and the insurance rates of LNC-4's is about the most stupid = statement of them all.=20 Much smarter people then I designed this aircraft and much better pilots = then I have pushed it far beyond it's published limits.=20 One point we all equally share is Lancair's are one incredible aircraft. = We just don't equally share the individual piloting freedoms of our = aircraft.=20 Randy Stuart LNC-2 Wishing the LML and all pilots a safe and wonderful holiday.. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mark Sletten=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 11:50 PM Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list Randy, =20 You keep suggesting those arguing against exceeding = factory-recommended structural limits are overly-cautious because a) you = do it all the time, and b) there have been no reported in-flight = structural failures. These are not logical positions; here=E2=80=99s = why: =20 Regarding the no-reported-structural-failure argument: The lack of an = in-flight structural failure on any given flight proves only that no = structural limit was exceeded by that aircraft on that flight. = Conversely, an in-flight structural failure proves only that some = structural limit for that aircraft on that flight was exceeded, not = which limit, by how much, under what flight conditions or why. I can = think of any number of logical reasons for the lack of such reported = in-flight structural failures, many of which either have nothing to do = with whether or not the factory-recommended Vne is appropriate, or = actually serve to verify that they are. =20 Regarding your argument that you regularly exceed factory-recommended = Vne in your aircraft: Absent data from your flight test regimen and = analysis, this =E2=80=98fact=E2=80=99 has no bearing on the veracity of = factory-recommended structural limitations. As has been pointed out by = several posters with a great deal of aerodynamic design experience, = there is a scientific process to determine Vne for a given airframe. = They have told us there are many variations, such as material = differences and build processes, that make setting precise structural = limits (i.e. exceed THIS speed and the airframe WILL fail) for a fleet = of aircraft impossible. We=E2=80=99ve learned that, instead, design = engineers make careful estimates based on a host of design factors, then = conduct ground and careful flight testing to verify them. Even still, = unless a failure mode is exceeded (the airframe or a major component = fails) the structural limit is still only an estimate. Further, = we=E2=80=99ve learned that once they=E2=80=99ve made and tested their = estimated structural limits for a given airframe, engineers then apply = appropriate =E2=80=98fudge factors=E2=80=99 to account for the = variations. The end result is a set of conservative structural limits = for the fleet. =20 The fact that your airframe can exceed them (by how much, under what = conditions, using what specific materials, what specific build process, = etc?) doesn=E2=80=99t mean the recommended limits are invalid. Indeed, = since there is a built in =E2=80=98fudge factor,=E2=80=99 ALL airframes = should be able to exceed the limits. The question is, once you exceed = the recommended limit how close are you to the ACTUAL airframe limit? = The answer, of course, is each plane is different. Therefore the fact = remains, absent a rigorous flight test program for a given airframe, = operating the aircraft within the structural limits recommended by the = original designer is the best way to avoid structural failure. Have you = constructed and followed a flight test regimen to determine actual = structural limits for your aircraft? Have you applied the same = corrections for material and process variation as the original design = team to your results? If so, sharing the data and your analysis would go = far toward proving your position. =20 In previous posts, you=E2=80=99ve proposed the thesis that the = designers of the 300 series Lancair airframe were =E2=80=98too = conservative=E2=80=99 in setting structural limits for the fleet, but = you haven=E2=80=99t shared any relevant data to support it. = Scientifically speaking, suggesting others must present data to disprove = your thesis is backwards. You are refuting the scientific opinion of the = original design engineers; if you feel their design process was flawed, = then YOU must present the (relevant) data to prove your position. Simply = stating you exceed the limits all the time is not data =E2=80=93 = it=E2=80=99s anecdote. As far as I=E2=80=99m concerned, based on the = lack of in-flight structural failures, the original designers of the = Lancair 300 series airframe followed an appropriate scientific process = in determining safe structural limits for the airframe.=20 =20 In a recent post (see below), you wrote, =E2=80=98Lancair's ARE safe!! = They must be built and flow with ability and respect. All the evidence = proves this. Stop scaring people!=E2=80=99 =20 No one denies Lancair aircraft are well-designed and well-engineered; = the efficacy of the design is not at issue. The issue is whether or not = the aircraft can be safely operated outside of its design parameters. So = far, you have presented no evidence to support such a position. =20 Beyond that, I find it curious that you use the word = =E2=80=98scare=E2=80=99 in regards to warning people of the danger of = exceeding factory-recommended structural limits. If by = =E2=80=98scare=E2=80=99 you mean =E2=80=98warn of the danger=E2=80=99 = then I agree with you. If by =E2=80=98scare=E2=80=99 you mean = =E2=80=98interfere with one=E2=80=99s ability to enjoy the full = potential of one=E2=80=99s aircraft=E2=80=99 =E2=80=93 as you seem to = imply based on previous posts =E2=80=93 then I strongly disagree with = you. Indeed, operating within factory-recommended limitations is = PRECISELY what allows many (dare I say the majority?) to enjoy the full = potential of their aircraft with maximum peace of mind. =20 Indeed, enjoyment diminishes rapidly when a major structural component = depart the airframe =E2=80=93 especially in-flight. =20 Respectfully, =20 Mark Sletten =20 From: Randy [mailto:randystuart@hotmail.com]=20 Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 9:19 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Tone on list =20 To: The LML police,=20 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.=20 After reading this could you please report back the LML, pointing out = all, if any, Lancair's that came apart from exceeding Vne?=20 I did find one that had a bonded surface on a wing come off, caused by = poor building, but landed safely.=20 Again, these facts fully support myself and others. Not the opinions = and assumptions of the LML police.=20 Lancair's ARE safe!! They must be built and flow with ability and = respect. All the evidence proves this. Stop scaring people! =20 Randy Stuart LNC-2 =20 =20 ----- 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 =20 Mr. Stuart, =20 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 =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 =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. = =20 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 =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. =20 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 =20 Best Regards, =20 Jeff Edwards President LOBO changing one mind at a time. =20 =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. =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???? =20 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".. =20 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 =20 Note: This was all written with a nice tone. =20 Randy Stuart LNC-2 =20 =20 ----- 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 =20 Mark, =20 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. =20 Best Regards--have a safe and happy holiday season, =20 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, =20 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. =20 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. =20 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. =20 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): =20 - 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 =20 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 =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) =20 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. =20 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 =20 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. =20 Respectfully, =20 Mark Sletten =20 From: Jim Scales [mailto:joscales98@hotmail.com]=20 Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:52 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Tone on list =20 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. =20 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. =20 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 =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. =20 ------=_NextPart_000_006B_01CA8160.1D10BC40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BF
Mark,=20
For the most part = I don't=20 disagree with you. And I've said many of the same points you have. The = Lancair=20 designers, I'm sure, were very conservative with their numbers. And for = a very=20 good reason.
I never said I fly = past Vne=20 all the time, I said I have and do on occasion in the right conditions. = I also=20 have not lobbied to change the published numbers, I do think they = are very=20 safe and well within the limits of this aircraft. My proof and = statements=20 concerning Lancair's commonly exceeding Vne without coming apart is to = refute=20 the ridicules statements by the LML police. The sky isn't falling.=20
I'm not the one = calling people=20 suicidal, or wish them death, blaming them for insurance rates, = forwarding=20 emails to the FAA, etc. I didn't start this thread, but I have no = problem=20 defending it.
Scaring people = with=20 misinformation is the problem. Not stating the truth is the problem.=20 Disregarding all the statistics and evidence is the problem.=20
All Lancair's were = designed=20 safe and should be flown within the published limits, I agree. But they = have=20 been flown past these limits, numerous times, and not come apart. = This is=20 irrefutable. Since the LML police insist that the published Vne is the = point of=20 distruction, I asked for one example, one statistic, one shred of = evidence to=20 this claim. No one has yet posted this evidence. And the = relationship=20 between my post and the insurance rates of LNC-4's is about the most = stupid=20 statement of them all.
Much smarter = people then=20 I designed this aircraft and much better pilots = then I have=20 pushed it far beyond it's published limits.
One point we all = equally share=20 is Lancair's are one incredible aircraft. We just don't equally share = the=20 individual piloting freedoms of our aircraft. =
 
Randy=20 Stuart
LNC-2
 
Wishing the LML = and all pilots=20 a safe and wonderful holiday..
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Mark=20 Sletten
Sent: Saturday, December 19, = 2009 11:50=20 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on = list

Randy,

 

You=20 keep suggesting those arguing against exceeding factory-recommended = structural=20 limits are overly-cautious because a) you do it all the time, and b) = there=20 have been no reported in-flight structural failures. These are not = logical=20 positions; here=E2=80=99s why:

 

Regarding=20 the no-reported-structural-failure argument: The lack of an in-flight=20 structural failure on any given flight proves only that no structural = limit=20 was exceeded by that aircraft on that flight. Conversely, an = in-flight=20 structural failure proves only that some structural limit for that = aircraft=20 on that flight was exceeded, not which limit, by how much, under = what=20 flight conditions or why. I can think of any number of logical reasons = for the=20 lack of such reported in-flight structural failures, many of which = either have=20 nothing to do with whether or not the factory-recommended Vne is = appropriate,=20 or actually serve to verify that they are.

 

Regarding=20 your argument that you regularly exceed factory-recommended Vne in = your=20 aircraft: Absent data from your flight test regimen and analysis, this = =E2=80=98fact=E2=80=99=20 has no bearing on the veracity of factory-recommended structural = limitations.=20 As has been pointed out by several posters with a great deal of = aerodynamic=20 design experience, there is a scientific process to determine Vne for = a given=20 airframe. They have told us there are many variations, such as = material=20 differences and build processes, that make setting precise = structural=20 limits (i.e. exceed THIS speed and the airframe=20 WILL fail) for a fleet of aircraft impossible. = We=E2=80=99ve learned=20 that, instead, design engineers make careful estimates based on a host = of=20 design factors, then conduct ground and careful flight testing to = verify them.=20 Even still, unless a failure mode is exceeded (the airframe or a major = component fails) the structural limit is still only an estimate. = Further,=20 we=E2=80=99ve learned that once they=E2=80=99ve made and tested their = estimated structural=20 limits for a given airframe, engineers then apply appropriate = =E2=80=98fudge factors=E2=80=99=20 to account for the variations. The end result is a set of conservative = structural limits for the fleet.

 

The=20 fact that your airframe can exceed them (by how much, under what = conditions,=20 using what specific materials, what specific build process, etc?) = doesn=E2=80=99t mean=20 the recommended limits are invalid. Indeed, since there is a built in = =E2=80=98fudge=20 factor,=E2=80=99 ALL airframes should be able to exceed the limits. = The question is,=20 once you exceed the recommended limit how close are you to the=20 ACTUAL airframe limit? The answer, of course, is each = plane is=20 different. Therefore the fact remains, absent a rigorous flight test = program=20 for a given airframe, operating the aircraft within the structural = limits=20 recommended by the original designer is the best way to avoid = structural=20 failure. Have you constructed and followed a flight test regimen to = determine=20 actual structural limits for your aircraft? Have you applied the same=20 corrections for material and process variation as the original design = team to=20 your results? If so, sharing the data and your analysis would go far = toward=20 proving your position.

 

In=20 previous posts, you=E2=80=99ve proposed the thesis that the designers = of the 300=20 series Lancair airframe were =E2=80=98too conservative=E2=80=99 in = setting structural limits=20 for the fleet, but you haven=E2=80=99t shared any relevant data to = support it.=20 Scientifically speaking, suggesting others must present data to = disprove your=20 thesis is backwards. You are refuting the scientific opinion of the = original=20 design engineers; if you feel their design process was flawed, then = YOU=20 must present the (relevant) data to prove your position. Simply = stating you=20 exceed the limits all the time is not data =E2=80=93 it=E2=80=99s = anecdote. As far as I=E2=80=99m=20 concerned, based on the lack of in-flight structural failures, the = original=20 designers of the Lancair 300 series airframe followed an appropriate=20 scientific process in determining safe structural limits for the = airframe.=20

 

In=20 a recent post (see below), you wrote, =E2=80=98Lancair's ARE safe!! = They must be built=20 and flow with ability and respect. All the evidence proves this. Stop = scaring=20 people!=E2=80=99

 

No=20 one denies Lancair aircraft are well-designed and well-engineered; the = efficacy of the design is not at issue. The issue is whether or not = the=20 aircraft can be safely operated outside of its design parameters. So = far, you=20 have presented no evidence to support such a = position.

 

Beyond=20 that, I find it curious that you use the word =E2=80=98scare=E2=80=99 = in regards to warning=20 people of the danger of exceeding factory-recommended structural = limits. If by=20 =E2=80=98scare=E2=80=99 you mean =E2=80=98warn of the danger=E2=80=99 = then I agree with you. If by =E2=80=98scare=E2=80=99 you=20 mean =E2=80=98interfere with one=E2=80=99s ability to enjoy the full = potential of one=E2=80=99s=20 aircraft=E2=80=99 =E2=80=93 as you seem to imply based on previous = posts =E2=80=93 then I strongly=20 disagree with you. Indeed, operating within factory-recommended = limitations is=20 PRECISELY what allows many (dare I say the majority?) to = enjoy=20 the full potential of their aircraft with maximum peace of=20 mind.

 

Indeed,=20 enjoyment diminishes rapidly when a major structural component depart = the=20 airframe =E2=80=93 especially in-flight.

 

Respectfully,

 

Mark=20 Sletten

 

From: Randy=20 [mailto:randystuart@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 18, = 2009=20 9:19 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Re: = [LML] Re:=20 Tone on list

 

To: The=20 LML police,

Please=20 open the attachment and read it all. These are not all the NTSB = reports to=20 date but a very detailed list of Lancair accidents from 1989 to 2005.=20

After=20 reading this could you please report back the LML, pointing out all, = if any,=20 Lancair's that came apart from exceeding Vne?=20

I did find=20 one that had a bonded surface on a wing come off, caused by poor=20 building, but landed safely.

Again,=20 these facts fully support myself and others. Not the opinions and = assumptions=20 of the LML police.

Lancair's=20 ARE safe!! They must be built and flow with ability and respect. All = the=20 evidence proves this. Stop scaring=20 people!

 

Randy=20 Stuart

LNC-2

 

 

----- = Original=20 Message -----

From: vtailjeff@aol.com=20

To: lml@lancaironline.net=20

Sent: = Thursday,=20 December 17, 2009 6:37 AM

Subject: [LML] = Re: Tone=20 on list

 

Mr.=20 Stuart,

 

In=20 reading my post and your post it seems you have misquoted me more = than once.=20 I did not claim that these LML posts drive our insurance rates or = that your=20 claim to fly beyond Vne affects our insurance rates. What I said is = that our=20 insurance rates are driven by our accident rate and that we need=20 to change pilot behaviour [for the better].=20

 

You=20 have spent many posts defending your [IMHO suicidal] piloting = behaviour in=20 flying beyond Vne. I have to ask myself why does this person = cling to=20 this belief in the face of overwhelming arguments to the contrary. = In other=20 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,=20 I would not gloat about the Legacy safety record.The Legacy fleet is = not far=20 behind the IV's in total accidents. Fact:  There have been = 8=20 reported Lancair accidents this year.  2 each IVP and = Legacy. The=20 other four accidents occurred to 200/300 series aircraft. What has = happened=20 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=20 model. Fact: Over 55% of all Lancair accidents occur to private=20 pilots--while less than 40% of all pilots are private pilots.=20

 

Is=20 flying beyond Vne risky?--IMHO as a CFI and a DPE and aircraft = accident=20 investigator--yes. Its also illegal per 14 cfr 91.9. If you think = your rates=20 are low and flying beyond Vne is okay then "man up" and =  send=20 these posts to your insurance company and see how low they stay. If = you=20 think flying beyond Vne is safe and legal then "man up" and send = this stuff=20 to your local FSDO. They might be interested in talking to you.=20

 

As=20 I stated in the last post,  I and a few others have worked our = tails=20 off for the last 18 months forming LOBO, developing a training = program and=20 getting the insurance industry behind us. We have also been working = with the=20 FAA to improve our Lancair safety record. Please do not screw this = up for us=20 and auger in any time soon.

 

OBTW--after=20 Shannon's fatal several of us contacted the NTSB and forwarded these = typse=20 of emails to the them. You can read about it in the NTSB report.=20

 

Best=20 Regards,

 

Jeff=20 Edwards

President=20 LOBO

changing=20 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]=20 Re: Tone on list

Well,=20 here we go again.... The sky is falling.

 

With the=20 spirit of the "Tone on the list", again, anyone that said they have = flown=20 beyond Vne is attacked.

Blaming=20 us for your insurance rates because I said I have flown past Vne? = Now you've=20 added we must be "Low time / Low experienced folks"..=20 Really????

 

Year=20 after year after year after year I've never had any problem binding = a full=20 policy for my Lancair, for a very reasonable premium, nor has anyone = else I=20 know with an LNC-2. LNC-4's on the other hand, the Lancair's that do = seem to=20 cause many fatals, is hard to insure and expensive. =

And=20 you blame that on a post on the LML??? Do you have any proof what so = ever=20 backing this extraordinary claim? Are all the underwriters reading = this=20 forum and raising LNC-4 rates because someone with an LNC-2 said he = likes to=20 go fast?? No wait, it was " blatant risky behavior"...  =20

My=20 rates have gone down.... Hummm.. I guess I must be a "Good=20 risk"..

 

This=20 is not constructive criticism, this down right rude and abusive to = talk that=20 way about other pilots. This is my choice, not yours, I don't = believe I'm=20 "risky". 

I=20 don't raise your rates ( which is a ridiculous statement ). LNC-4's = have=20 proven to be a bad risk thought the years, not LNC-2's = or LNC-3's,=20 that's why your rates are high! And that's why LNC-2's are low.=20

 

This=20 is a great forum and there are many very experienced pilots and = builders=20 here, and some of us fly past Vne.. And do aerobatics = and close=20 formation, and race.

If=20 you can't understand how a four place, high risk, very=20 costly, pressurized experimental aircraft has a very high = premium, you=20 should consult an insurance broker and ask how they calculative the = premium.=20 I would bet it's not from a post on the internet. =

 

Note:=20 This was all written with a nice tone.

 

Randy=20 Stuart

LNC-2

 

 

-----=20 Original Message -----

From:=20 vtailjeff@aol.com=20

Sent:=20 Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:33 PM

Subject:=20 [LML] Re: Tone on list

 

Mark,

 

Very=20 well said-- and I might add that LOBO has been trying for over a = year now=20 to get insurance at affordable rates for members-- but this = mission=20 depends on reducing the accidents whcih in turn on changing = people's=20 belief systems about risk and safety. If you post something that = smacks of=20 blatant risky behaviour do not be surprised if someone on the list = makes a=20 remark about it. Many of the folks who have held such beliefs are=20 generally low time/ low experience folks.Unfortunately, some of = them are=20 no longer with us--and it is not because they quit the list. =  Many of=20 the commenters are the opposite. This is a great forum to learn if = one is=20 willing to accept constructive criticism from some very = experienced folks=20 in the industry.

On=20 another note, I have been speaking to an insurance company that = wants us=20 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=20 privately.

 

Best=20 Regards--have a safe and happy holiday = season,

 

Jeff=20 Edwards

President,=20 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=20 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=20 and judgment were under constant review. Public post-flight = reviews (to=20 give you an idea of the mindset, we called them = =E2=80=98critiques=E2=80=99) were=20 mandatory, and all aspects of a mission were evaluated for mission = effectiveness and safety. For training missions, the guiding = principle was=20 (still is I=E2=80=99m sure) =E2=80=98safety of flight is = paramount.=E2=80=99 For operational=20 missions crews might assume higher risks to get the job done, but=20 compromising safety for a training mission was , um, not in = accordance=20 with official guidance.

 

Despite=20 our government=E2=80=99s current effort to the contrary, you = can=E2=80=99t write a rule=20 book that prohibits EVERY sort of dangerous = behavior/mindset/inclination.=20 This, 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=20 negligent -- on a training mission. The problem is you = can=E2=80=99t simply throw=20 away a pilot you have spent millions training for behaving = stupidly on a=20 single flight. And sanctioning via official means (reprimands,=20 courts-martial, etc.) usually kills any chance of promotion, so = you may as=20 well count on a person so sanctioned to punch out (of the service) = at the=20 earliest opportunity. Understanding this, the leadership chooses = to use=20 peer pressure to modify behavior rather than more official means. = It turns=20 out the peer pressure 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=20 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=20 point out that while public rebukes may come across as pompous = personal=20 puffing (and some may be), often it is simply a matter of habit = =E2=80=93 and old=20 habits are 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=20 behavior/idea/mindset is heinous enough it will speak for itself. = Humor is=20 often an effective tool to use in such cases, but beware the = problems=20 noted above. If you want to be funny, be sure it=E2=80=99s funny = and not mean=20 spirited. You might find them trite and silly, but adding an emoticon to your text can be = an=20 effective means of deflecting hurt feelings. (I can=E2=80=99t wait = to see how some=20 of these guys react 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=20 the defensive wall sure to go up after you deride his/her ego, = your best=20 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=20 of another person=E2=80=99s behavior. I=E2=80=99ve learned some of = the most important=20 lessons of my life after being shown (always unpleasant) how = I=E2=80=99d behaved=20 stupidly or irresponsibly. Yes, it hurt, but I am forever grateful = to the=20 @$$holes who pointed out the error of my ways.

 

Respectfully,

 

Mark=20 Sletten

 

From:=20 Jim Scales [mailto:joscales98@hotmail.com]=20
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:52 PM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject:=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=20 the purpose of the list and turns other listers off.  I'm = guessing it=20 also 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=20 being received. 

------=_NextPart_000_006B_01CA8160.1D10BC40--