X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:37:49 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from exprod7og117.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.6] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with SMTP id 6850375 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:32:41 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.18.2.6; envelope-from=jsocolof@ershire.com Received: from mail.fins.org ([74.8.85.130]) by exprod7ob117.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKU16stmvpOg0W2xtYqKjMTUxM1u90AVy0@postini.com; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:32:41 PDT Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Legacy White Paper MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CF6318.6F59895C" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 X-Original-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:31:40 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <4C1329C81FB629449A04A2D7FC1F8EFA4FBD2A@defiant.fins.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Legacy White Paper Thread-Index: Ac9jGHpjdAThS1w8RMiaaw7DqoY3yA== From: "Jon Socolof" X-Original-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CF6318.6F59895C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The Legacy canopy design is not unsafe or inadequate and does the job exactly as Lancair intended. In all my training in the Legacy, attention to the canopy has always been stressed. It's a check list item and as in my military jet, a verification item by pushing on the canopy prior to takeoff. After the tragic Lakeland accident Lancair incorporated an additional canopy safety warning into the design. If a builder wants to change the design, that's a judgment call.=20 =20 I don't believe there is a case of a "secured" canopy opening in flight and it has been demonstrated here, the plane can be flown with the canopy open. These are high performance airplanes, deserve respect and require skill to operate. Yes, some pilots failed to secure their canopies before fight. Some recovered their airplanes and some had lesser results.=20 =20 Human factors are the issue here and unfortunately, failures will occur. Failure to use checklists or missing items, rushing, complacency and non-standard procedures, continuing takeoffs with the canopy unsecured, operating on runways with insufficient Accelerate Stop Distances, etc.=20 =20 I am concerned how a paper like this may be perceived. Will it scare off potential builders and buyers or be interpreted to indicate a design flaw? I don't believe this paper presents anything new or unknown. As far as I know, there is no record of an in-flight breakup or failure of a Legacy, yet the airframe has developed a certain reputation by biting a few unwary pilots, but just how does this paper help?=20 =20 FWIW =20 Jon =20 =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01CF6318.6F59895C Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The Legacy = canopy design is not unsafe or inadequate and does the job exactly as = Lancair intended. In all my training in the Legacy, attention to the = canopy has always been stressed. It’s a check list item and as in = my military jet, a verification item by pushing on the canopy prior to = takeoff. After the tragic Lakeland accident Lancair incorporated an = additional canopy safety warning into the design.  If a builder = wants to change the design, that’s a judgment call. =

 

I don’t believe there is a case of a = “secured” canopy opening in flight and it has been = demonstrated here, the plane can be flown with the canopy open. =  These are high performance airplanes, deserve respect and require = skill to operate. Yes, some pilots failed to secure their canopies = before fight. Some recovered their airplanes and some had lesser = results.

 

Human factors are the issue here and unfortunately, = failures will occur. Failure to use checklists or missing items, = rushing, complacency and non-standard procedures, continuing takeoffs = with the canopy unsecured, operating on runways with insufficient = Accelerate Stop Distances, etc.

 

I am = concerned how a paper like this may be perceived. Will it scare off = potential builders and buyers or be interpreted to indicate a design = flaw?   I don’t believe this paper presents anything new = or unknown.  As far as I know, there is no record of an in-flight = breakup or failure of a Legacy, yet the airframe has developed a certain = reputation by biting a few unwary pilots, but just how does this paper = help?

 

FWIW

 

Jon

 

 

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01CF6318.6F59895C--