X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:52:26 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web83813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com ([69.147.85.89] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.8) with SMTP id 4397281 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:33:38 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.147.85.89; envelope-from=lancair1@bellsouth.net Received: (qmail 38611 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Jul 2010 13:33:02 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=bellsouth.net; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=It4o4urv1qCHOUighl8F62uQvdxjVY1maMh1/54122Kx+nkTJAjruKFIfW5jfWrVGsC/UOpcHTz3WMlbVKnJ/Ilgteog09gRNqdofIubnjw6YqNAnjIKJi4BndAhuoUv4vv5uF7msAxv4f+4ga0tr1bcfNHbGUOFARFO+zOrJKs=; X-Original-Message-ID: <387647.37059.qm@web83813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: cU3iGeIVM1lsW3M6BxaGOhAxv0_QmGn6kOLs1eTO6aFSfMo sO_Kwhv6TMVWEhvJlTc.9MPa978MB7eMPJOMOWp4z_SbkdqvtgkbLLoNkhHG mBno4Sj67BbNRVlcHrhfJLaUtOrAIT2j.ksMNqb6tHt1R2ZNi0.2uuycf3ir Jbz9qKQsO7QvgRbkS6X2JEf1fSkdmG0Pd852ftOo5YS3.wfsPqpO7tZuwTEf _pguSzxKX2li.S0iOkJZs2J7l60SFw1bE6q_FIHQ5WIzro8snHgXeCEry8fn oRo9YsOVUK2r33ZZ206gz4P3jBv8h_rbyRM_BEE7knK0zIrZeBwVOtV9m6wM ViQ49s6lbHgrVNYw- Received: from [24.10.142.151] by web83813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 18 Jul 2010 06:33:02 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/420.4 YahooMailWebService/0.8.104.276605 References: X-Original-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 06:33:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Douglas Johnson Subject: Re: [LML] Re: LII Resale Agreement X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1967496944-1279459982=:37059" --0-1967496944-1279459982=:37059 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To that point,=C2=A0the requirement by Lancair for an insurance inspection = by their =0Aapproved=C2=A0parties, and training by parties=C2=A0approved by= them, actually INCREASES =0Atheir liability exposure, should a mishap subs= equently occur. They become much =0Amore than a supplier of components. I w= ould imagine tort attorneys would be =0Asalivating over these clauses.=0A= =C2=A0Douglas W. Johnson MD, FACR=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________= ________=0AFrom: Stan Fields =0ATo: lml@lancaironli= ne.net=0ASent: Sun, July 18, 2010 6:35:49 AM=0ASubject: [LML] Re: LII Resal= e Agreement=0A=0A=0AI agree with Mark that the $300 transfer fee credit is = a good way to ensure that =0ALancair can keep and maintain accurate aircraf= t and customer records. I also =0Aagree with Dennis that Lancair oversteps = it=E2=80=99s role as manufacturer in tying =0Atraining and aircraft inspect= ion requirements in order to get or buy parts and =0Asupport. I appreciate = Lancair=E2=80=99s efforts in finding=C2=A0 and endorsing training and =0Ain= spection services. I intend to avail myself of both but on a volunteer basi= s. =0A=0A=C2=A0=0ALancair has made it clear that their role as manufacturer= is limited to building =0Acomponents, not airplanes, and that builders ass= ume complete responsibility for =0Athe purpose we choose to their component= s. I=E2=80=99m ok with that. Lancair assumes no =0Aresponsibility for the = =E2=80=9Cairplane=E2=80=9D nor should it create a mandatory =0Aresponsibili= ty for its inspection or training.=0A=C2=A0=0AStan Fields=0A=C2=A0=0AFrom:L= ancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Dennis =0AJ= ohnson=0ASent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 6:44 PM=0ATo: lml@lancaironline.net= =0ASubject: [LML] LII Resale Agreement=0A=C2=A0=0AI agree with Mark that La= ncair's decision to apply the $300 transfer fee to a =0Acredit for parts pu= rchases is a good move.=C2=A0 I thank the new owner for that!=C2=A0 =0AHowe= ver, in my opinion the $300 was never an issue.=C2=A0 The following is a qu= ote =0Afrom their resale agreement:=0A=C2=A0=0AFurther, the new purchaser o= f a flying Lancair aircraft or an uncompleted kit, =0Aand prior to the=0Aai= rcraft being transferred, must agree to have either flying Lancair aircraft= or =0Aupon first flight of an=0Auncompleted kit inspected by our insurance= inspection team. The new purchaser =0Amust also agree to=0Aparticipate in = any Lancair endorsed training program.=0A=C2=A0=0AThese two requirements ar= e, it seems to me, potentially very expensive.=C2=A0 An =0Ainspection by La= ncair's "insurance inspection team" could be thousands of =0Adollars.=C2=A0= The paragraph is awkwardly worded.=C2=A0 It says the buyer must agree to = =0Ahave the inspection, but it doesn't say the inspection has to be complet= ed and =0Ait doesn't say the airplane has to pass the inspection.=C2=A0 =0A= =0A=C2=A0=0AOne of the benefits of building my own experimental airplane is= the privilege of =0Ausing materials and techniques of my own choosing, wit= h nobody (except the FAA, =0Asort of) looking over my shoulder.=C2=A0 Altho= ugh I'm confident=C2=A0my relatively small =0Amodifications from the offici= al plans would be acceptable to Lancair, there's =0Aalways the possibility = that some future Lancair owner (we're now on the third =0Asince I've been b= uilding) could decide any changes from the plans, no matter how =0Ainsignif= icant, must be "corrected" before allowing the new purchaser to register = =0Athe airplane.=C2=A0 I'm not comfortable giving up that much power to Lan= cair.=C2=A0=C2=A0It's =0Amy airplane, not theirs.=C2=A0 =0A=0A=C2=A0=0AThe = resale agreement also says that the purchaser "must also agree to =0Apartic= ipate in any Lancair endorsed training program."=C2=A0 Holy moly, that's a = =0Arequirement limited only by the imagination of Lancair.=C2=A0A new owner= could also =0Adecide, for some=C2=A0insurance purpose perhaps,=C2=A0that t= he "Lancair endorsed training =0Aprogram" would require=C2=A0who knows how = many=C2=A0hours in a Lancair, completed at =0ARedmond.=C2=A0 =0A=0A=C2=A0= =0AThe inspection requirement, particularly if it=C2=A0includes a requireme= nt that the =0Ainspection must be "passed," and the=C2=A0unbounded training= requirement, could=C2=A0cost =0Aa seller thousands of dollars, and possibl= y tens of thousands.=C2=A0 And I think the =0Acost will fall on the seller,= =C2=A0even if the purchaser is the=C2=A0one who writes the =0Acheck.=0A=C2= =A0=0ADennis=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 --0-1967496944-1279459982=:37059 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0A
To that point, the requirement by L= ancair for an insurance inspection by their approved parties, and trai= ning by parties approved by them, actually INCREASES their liability e= xposure, should a mishap subsequently occur. They become much more than a s= upplier of components. I would imagine tort attorneys would be salivating o= ver these clauses.
 
Douglas W. Johnson MD, FACR
=0A
=0A

=0A
=0A
=0AFrom: Stan Field= s <sdfields@austin.rr.com>
To= : lml@lancaironline.net
= Sent: Sun, July 18, 2010 6:35:49 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: LII Resale Agreement
=0A=0A=0A
=0A

I agree with Mark that the $300 transfer fee credit is a good way t= o ensure that Lancair can keep and maintain accurate aircraft and customer = records. I also agree with Dennis that Lancair oversteps it=E2=80=99s role = as manufacturer in tying training and aircraft inspection requirements in o= rder to get or buy parts and support. I appreciate Lancair=E2=80=99s effort= s in finding  and endorsing training and inspection services. I intend= to avail myself of both but on a volunteer basis.

=0A

 

=0A

Lancair has made it c= lear that their role as manufacturer is limited to building components, not= airplanes, and that builders assume complete responsibility for the purpos= e we choose to their components. I=E2=80=99m ok with that. Lancair assumes = no responsibility for the =E2=80=9Cairplane=E2=80=9D nor should it create a= mandatory responsibility for its inspection or training.

=0A

 

=0A

Stan Fields

=0A

 

=0A
=0A
=0A

From: Lancair Mailing List [mail= to:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Dennis Johnson
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 6:44 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] LII Resale Agreement

=0A

 

=0A
=0A

I agree with Mark th= at Lancair's decision to apply the $300 transfer fee to a credit for parts = purchases is a good move.  I thank the new owner for that!  Howev= er, in my opinion the $300 was never an issue.  The following is a quo= te from their resale agreement:

=0A
=0A

&n= bsp;

=0A
=0A

F= urther, the new purchaser of a flying Lancair aircraft or an uncompleted ki= t, and prior to the
aircraft being transferred, must agree to have eithe= r flying Lancair aircraft or upon first flight of an
uncompleted kit ins= pected by our insurance inspection team. The new purchaser must also agree = to
participate in any Lancair endorsed training program.

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

These two requirements are, it seems to me, potentially very expensiv= e.  An inspection by Lancair's "insurance inspection team" could be th= ousands of dollars.  The paragraph is awkwardly worded.  It says = the buyer must agree to have the inspection, but it doesn't say the inspect= ion has to be completed and it doesn't say the airplane has to pass the ins= pection. 

=0A
=0A

 

= =0A
=0A

One of the benefits of building my own expe= rimental airplane is the privilege of using materials and techniques of my = own choosing, with nobody (except the FAA, sort of) looking over my shoulde= r.  Although I'm confident my relatively small modifications from= the official plans would be acceptable to Lancair, there's always the poss= ibility that some future Lancair owner (we're now on the third since I've b= een building) could decide any changes from the plans, no matter how insign= ificant, must be "corrected" before allowing the new purchaser to register = the airplane.  I'm not comfortable giving up that much power to Lancai= r.  It's my airplane, not theirs. 

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

The resale= agreement also says that the purchaser "must also agree to participate in = any Lancair endorsed training program."  Holy moly, that's a requireme= nt limited only by the imagination of Lancair. A new owner could also = decide, for some insurance purpose perhaps, that the "Lancair end= orsed training program" would require who knows how many hours in= a Lancair, completed at Redmond. 

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

The inspection requi= rement, particularly if it includes a requirement that the inspection = must be "passed," and the unbounded training requirement, could c= ost a seller thousands of dollars, and possibly tens of thousands.  An= d I think the cost will fall on the seller, even if the purchaser is t= he one who writes the check.

=0A
=0A

=  

=0A
=0A

Dennis   

--0-1967496944-1279459982=:37059--