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