Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 08:12:23 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-6851134@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=63.230.26.161; envelope-from=kevin@arilabs.net
From: Kevin Stallard <kevin@arilabs.net>
Subject: RE: [LML] Legacy White Paper
Thread-Topic: [LML] Legacy White Paper
Thread-Index: Ac9jGVoItdU79ynbQZG6t2lK6XYp+wABTPUD
References: <list-6850376@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-6850376@logan.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

I have to add my support to this post.  I appreciate the time put into the =
report.  But there are a number of conclusions that are drawn without corre=
sponding test data.  This concerns me.  There are even some diagrams of air=
flow over the airplane in some configurations, do we have wind tunnel data =
that supports this?

I feel strongly enough that the airplane is fully controllable during fligh=
t that I have on my own agenda to put together some tests to either show or=
 disprove this idea that the airplane is or is not controllable (with the h=
elp of knowledgeable people I might add). =20

To put blame on the airplane and its design for the fatal accidents that ha=
ve occurred seems too easy of an out.  I understand that people have killed=
 themselves, but we need to fully identify the reason and this report (howe=
ver well meaning) isn't backed by real data or testing.

I don't mind calling it a collection or repository of information and exper=
iences, but to call it a report wherein specific action is outlined, I'm ju=
st not comfortable with it.

The legacy is a fantastic airplane, I really need hard data if I am going t=
o take any action to change its design.  Having extra locks and things on t=
he canopy could result in unintended consequences....

Thanks
Kevin


________________________________________
From: Lancair Mailing List [lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Jon Socolof=
 [jsocolof@ershire.com]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 1:37 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Legacy White Paper

The Legacy canopy design is not unsafe or inadequate and does the job exact=
ly as Lancair intended. In all my training in the Legacy, attention to the =
canopy has always been stressed. It=92s a check list item and as in my mili=
tary jet, a verification item by pushing on the canopy prior to takeoff. Af=
ter the tragic Lakeland accident Lancair incorporated an additional canopy =
safety warning into the design.  If a builder wants to change the design, t=
hat=92s a judgment call.

I don=92t believe there is a case of a =93secured=94 canopy opening in flig=
ht and it has been demonstrated here, the plane can be flown with the canop=
y open.  These are high performance airplanes, deserve respect and require =
skill to operate. Yes, some pilots failed to secure their canopies before f=
ight. Some recovered their airplanes and some had lesser results.

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

I am concerned how a paper like this may be perceived. Will it scare off po=
tential builders and buyers or be interpreted to indicate a design flaw?   =
I don=92t 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, y=
et the airframe has developed a certain reputation by biting a few unwary p=
ilots, but just how does this paper help?

FWIW

Jon