|
Mark,
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.
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.
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.
Scaring people with
misinformation is the problem. Not stating the truth is the problem.
Disregarding all the statistics and evidence is the problem.
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.
Much smarter people then
I designed this aircraft and much better pilots then I have
pushed it far beyond it's published limits.
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.
Randy
Stuart
LNC-2
Wishing the LML and all pilots
a safe and wonderful holiday..
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 11:50
PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list
Randy,
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’s why:
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.
Regarding
your argument that you regularly exceed factory-recommended Vne in your
aircraft: Absent data from your flight test regimen and analysis, this ‘fact’
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’ve 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’ve learned that once they’ve made and tested their estimated structural
limits for a given airframe, engineers then apply appropriate ‘fudge factors’
to account for the variations. The end result is a set of conservative
structural limits for the fleet.
The
fact that your airframe can exceed them (by how much, under what conditions,
using what specific materials, what specific build process, etc?) doesn’t mean
the recommended limits are invalid. Indeed, since there is a built in ‘fudge
factor,’ 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.
In
previous posts, you’ve proposed the thesis that the designers of the 300
series Lancair airframe were ‘too conservative’ in setting structural limits
for the fleet, but you haven’t 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 – it’s anecdote. As far as I’m
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.
In
a recent post (see below), you wrote, ‘Lancair's ARE safe!! They must be built
and flow with ability and respect. All the evidence proves this. Stop scaring
people!’
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.
Beyond
that, I find it curious that you use the word ‘scare’ in regards to warning
people of the danger of exceeding factory-recommended structural limits. If by
‘scare’ you mean ‘warn of the danger’ then I agree with you. If by ‘scare’ you
mean ‘interfere with one’s ability to enjoy the full potential of one’s
aircraft’ – as you seem to imply based on previous posts – 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.
Indeed,
enjoyment diminishes rapidly when a major structural component depart the
airframe – especially in-flight.
Respectfully,
Mark
Sletten
From: Randy
[mailto:randystuart@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009
9:19 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Re: [LML] Re:
Tone on list
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!
----- Original
Message -----
Sent: Thursday,
December 17, 2009 6:37 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Tone
on list
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.
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.
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:33 PM
Subject:
[LML] Re: Tone on list
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,
-----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
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.
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.
|