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 corresponding test data.  This concerns me.  There are even some diagrams of airflow 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 flight 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 help of knowledgeable people I might add).  

To put blame on the airplane and its design for the fatal accidents that have 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 (however well meaning) isn't backed by real data or testing.

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

The legacy is a fantastic airplane, I really need hard data if I am going to take any action to change its design.  Having extra locks and things on the 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 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