X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 11:04:00 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from exprod7og110.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.173] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with SMTP id 6852975 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:42:37 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.18.2.173; envelope-from=jsocolof@ershire.com Received: from mail.fins.org ([74.8.85.130]) by exprod7ob110.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKU2ELtwMZ+URQgxso5bjWy/8iquhlo3yG@postini.com; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 07:42:35 PDT Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Legacy White Paper MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CF6482.3B7DD6A4" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 X-Original-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:41:30 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <4C1329C81FB629449A04A2D7FC1F8EFA4FBD31@defiant.fins.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Legacy White Paper Thread-Index: Ac9kgkaPT81PW/VgQDSosZEcCCppOg== From: "Jon Socolof" X-Original-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CF6482.3B7DD6A4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Valin, I read the paper thoroughly and have to agree with it because simply It states the obvious and what we already know. I just question why it's necessary. It's neither a design study nor engineering analysis of anything, but is presented this way and may be mistakenly perceived this way. It draws conclusions based on seemingly anecdotal evidence with no empirical supporting data. It doesn't bring to light any new information or reveal anything not already well known either about the Legacy or human factors. It suggests we do what Lancair has already done without crediting Lancair for incorporating a canopy warning into the design years ago after the Lakeland accident. If you want to write a dissertation on human factors fine, that would be interesting. If you want to write about the risks involved when modifying a manufacturer's engineered design I'm on board. I simply take exception to using the Legacy as an example to showcase a somehow inadequate design prone to exacerbate human error, which it is not. I'm only offering my own personal reaction to this paper FWIW (and probably not much). If the community wants to publish this I have no real objection. I'm just concerned this paper will be perceived for something it is not and possibly do more harm than good to the already challenging reputation of a fine airplane and company. =20 jon =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01CF6482.3B7DD6A4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Valin, I = read the paper thoroughly and have to agree with it because simply It = states the obvious and what we already know. I just question why = it’s necessary. It’s neither a design study nor engineering = analysis of anything, but is presented this way and may be mistakenly = perceived this way. It draws conclusions based on seemingly anecdotal = evidence with no empirical supporting data. It doesn’t bring to = light any new information or reveal anything not already well known = either about the Legacy or human factors. It suggests we do what Lancair = has already done without crediting Lancair for incorporating a canopy = warning into the design years ago after the Lakeland accident. If = you want to write a dissertation on human factors fine, that would be = interesting. If you want to write about the risks involved when = modifying a manufacturer’s engineered design I’m on = board. I simply take exception to using the Legacy as an example to = showcase a somehow inadequate design prone to exacerbate human error, = which it is not. I’m only offering my own personal reaction = to this paper FWIW (and probably not much). If the community wants to = publish this I have no real objection. I’m just concerned this = paper will be perceived for something it is not and possibly do more = harm than good to the already challenging reputation of a fine airplane = and company.

jon

------_=_NextPart_001_01CF6482.3B7DD6A4--