X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:03:11 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from ndjsnpf03.ndc.nasa.gov ([198.117.1.123] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTP id 6853376 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:01:26 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.117.1.123; envelope-from=valin.b.thorn@nasa.gov Received: from ndmsppt103.ndc.nasa.gov (ndmsppt103.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.0.68]) by ndjsnpf03.ndc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60FE92D8147 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:00:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from NDMSCHT116.ndc.nasa.gov (ndmscht116-pub.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.0.216]) by ndmsppt103.ndc.nasa.gov (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3UI0pGp003190 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:00:51 -0500 Received: from NDMSMBX402.ndc.nasa.gov ([169.254.2.176]) by NDMSCHT116.ndc.nasa.gov ([198.117.0.216]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:00:51 -0500 From: "Thorn, Valin B. (JSC-VA411)" X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-CC: "Thorn, Valin B. (JSC-VA411)" Subject: RE: [LML] Legacy White Paper Thread-Topic: [LML] Legacy White Paper Thread-Index: AQHPZIVukRaYGSzv5kiCowFECXNRopsqVUEA X-Original-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:00:50 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <0705A91F9164914998F23A2F0BB661A91454C7@NDMSMBX402.ndc.nasa.gov> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.35.45.94] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0705A91F9164914998F23A2F0BB661A91454C7NDMSMBX402ndcnasa_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.11.96,1.0.14,0.0.0000 definitions=2014-04-30_04:2014-04-30,2014-04-30,1970-01-01 signatures=0 --_000_0705A91F9164914998F23A2F0BB661A91454C7NDMSMBX402ndcnasa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jon, I've embedded my responses within your last LML message below. I apol= ogize that I'd mistakenly concluded your opinions were formed before a thor= ough reading of the material in the paper. Valin From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Jon = Socolof Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:04 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Legacy White Paper 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. From the Preface: "This paper was written to help improve the level of safety and reduce risk= s for pilots flying the Lancair Legacy airplane. Over the Legacy's almost = 15 year operational history, there have been periodic accidents resulting f= rom flight with the canopy unlatched/open. As those have occurred, the com= munity debates the causes and preventative measures. The forum where the c= ommunity comes together for these debates is the Lancair Mail List (LML). = The lively debate is wide ranging with many viewpoints represented and alwa= ys very helpful discussions. After these discussions, it can seem that eve= ryone understands the effective measures for dealing with the issues. Yet,= accidents related to flight without the canopy latched continue. Why is this? Many Legacy pilots do not participate in the LML, might not e= ven know of its existence, and do not have the benefit of the periodic LML = debates on this issue. And, even for those on the LML, with all the variou= s views and weeks over which the discussions occur, it can sometimes be dif= ficult to see a focused path forward. The Lancair Company has also not tak= en an active role in addressing this issue. So, this "paper" was created, to be placed in the public domain, to provide= another communication vehicle to the broader Lancair Legacy community wher= e information on this issue is consolidated for easy discovery and specific= recommendations are presented." It's neither a design study nor engineering analysis of anything, but is pr= esented this way and may be mistakenly perceived this way. I think we've only presented it as a kind of "white paper" that discusses a= n important subject. It draws conclusions based on seemingly anecdotal evidence with no empiri= cal supporting data. I had to look up the definition of "anecdotal" and "empirical" to make sure= I clearly understood this criticism... Yes, I guess the accident reports= , witness accounts, and reporting of surviving accident pilots can be consi= dered anecdotal. I think much of what is presented is empirical data. It doesn't bring to light any new information or reveal anything not alread= y well known either about the Legacy or human factors. I thought my theory about the corrupted pitch attitude visual cues was new.= But, the focus anyway was to collect information and various opinions on = the subject for people to consider - not scientific discovery. It suggests we do what Lancair has already done without crediting Lancair f= or incorporating a canopy warning into the design years ago after the Lakel= and accident. It is news to me that Lancair has included a canopy latched safety warning = system with their kits since 2005. I wish they would communicate safety en= hancement things like this to owners of kits purchased before then... Coul= d someone please post info on it here in the LML? The Lancair Company, and all experimental airplane companies, operate in a = delicate legal situation. To all our benefit, they are able to exist in a = legal construct that protects them from product liability where all us buil= ders of their airplane designs/kits are the official manufacturers. Thanks= to our ambulance chasing lawyer friends, even certified airplane designers= /manufacturers are reluctant to implement continuous improvements in their = airplanes because then lawyers cite the improvements as evidence that the p= revious designs were flawed... So I'm sympathetic with the good people at = Lancair and the challenges they face. If you want to write a dissertation on human factors fine, that would be i= nteresting. 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 pron= e to exacerbate human error, which it is not. I know for my wife and I that our Legacy airplane is a big part of our life= , part of our family really, and we have a tendency to regard it like over-= protective parents. But no machine is perfect and we need to glean all we = can from its safety history to make it better. There are almost 30 people = who've lost their lives in Lancair Legacy accidents and I think we need to = listen hard to what they're telling us. I'm only offering my own personal reaction to this paper FWIW (and probabl= y not much). If the community wants to publish this I have no real objectio= n. 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 o= f a fine airplane and company. I'd also like to see the community of Lancair Legacy builders and pilots gr= ow. My view is that any prospective builders/pilots conducting due diligen= ce on the airplane and its safety history would be happy to see that the ca= use of a considerable portion of the accidents and fatalities can be essent= ially eliminated by incorporating simple, inexpensive measures. jon --_000_0705A91F9164914998F23A2F0BB661A91454C7NDMSMBX402ndcnasa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jon, I’ve em= bedded my responses within your last LML message below.  I apologize t= hat I’d mistakenly concluded your opinions were formed before a thoro= ugh reading of the material in the paper. 

 <= /span>

Valin

 <= /span>

 <= /span>

From: Lancair = Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Jon Socolof
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:04 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Legacy White Paper

 

Valin, I read the paper thoroughly and have to agree= with it because simply It states the obvious and what we already know. &nb= sp;I just question why it’s necessary.<= o:p>

 <= /span>

From the Preface:&= nbsp;

 

“This paper was written to help improve the level of safety and reduce risks for= pilots flying the Lancair Legacy airplane.  Over the Legacy’s a= lmost 15 year operational history, there have been periodic accidents resul= ting from flight with the canopy unlatched/open.  As those have occurred, the community debates the causes and preventative = measures.  The forum where the community comes together for these deba= tes is the Lancair Mail List (LML).  The lively debate is wide ranging= with many viewpoints represented and always very helpful discussions.  After these discussions, it can seem that = everyone understands the effective measures for dealing with the issues.&nb= sp; Yet, accidents related to flight without the canopy latched continue.

 

Why is this?  Many Legacy pilots do not participate in the LML, might not even know of its existence, and do not have the bene= fit of the periodic LML debates on this issue.  And, even for those on= the LML, with all the various views and weeks over which the discussions o= ccur, it can sometimes be difficult to see a focused path forward.  The Lancair Company has also not taken a= n active role in addressing this issue. 

 

So, this “paper” was created, to be placed in the public domain, to provide another communication vehicle to the broader Lan= cair Legacy community where information on this issue is consolidated for e= asy discovery and specific recommendations are presented.”

 <= /span>

 <= /span>

It’s neither a design study nor engineering an= alysis of anything, but is presented this way and may be mistakenly perceiv= ed this way.

 <= /span>

I think we’ve only presented it as a kind of “white pa= per” that discusses an important subject.

 

  It draws= conclusions based on seemingly anecdotal evidence with no empirical suppor= ting data.

 <= /span>

I had to look up the definition of “anecdotal” and = 220;empirical” to make sure I clearly understood this criticism…= ;   Yes, I guess the accident reports, witness accounts, and reporting of surviving acciden= t pilots can be considered anecdotal.  I think much of what is present= ed is empirical data.

 <= /span>

 <= /span>

It doesn’t bring to light any new information = or reveal anything not already well known either about the Legacy or human = factors.

 

I thought my theory about the corrupted pitch attitude visual cues= was new.  But, the focus anyway was to collect information and various opinions on the subject for people to consider – not sci= entific discovery.

 <= /span>

 <= /span>

It suggests we do what Lancair has already done with= out crediting Lancair for incorporating a canopy warning into the design ye= ars ago after the Lakeland accident.

 <= /span>

It is news to me that Lancair has included a canopy latched safety= warning system with their kits since 2005.  I wish they would communicate safety enhancement things like this to owners of kits purchase= d before then…  Could someone please post info on it here in the= LML? 

 

The Lancair Company, and all experimental airplane companies, oper= ate in a delicate legal situation.  To all our benefit, they are able to exist in a legal construct that protects them from product lia= bility where all us builders of their airplane designs/kits are the officia= l manufacturers.  Thanks to our ambulance chasing lawyer friends, even= certified airplane designers/manufacturers are reluctant to implement continuous improvements in their airplanes beca= use then lawyers cite the improvements as evidence that the previous design= s were flawed…  So I’m sympathetic with the good people at= Lancair and the challenges they face. 

 <= /span>

 If you want to write a dissertation on human f= actors fine, that would be interesting. If you want to write about the risk= s involved when modifying a manufacturer’s  engineered design I&= #8217;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.

 <= /span>

I know for my wife and I that our Legacy airplane is a big part of= our life, part of our family really, and we have a tendency to regard it like over-protective parents.  But no machine is perfect= and we need to glean all we can from its safety history to make it better.=   There are almost 30 people who’ve lost their lives in Lancair = Legacy accidents and I think we need to listen hard to what they’re telling us.

 <= /span>

 I’m only offering my own personal reacti= on to this paper FWIW (and probably not much). If the community wants to pu= blish this I have no real objection. I’m just concerned this paper wi= ll be perceived for something it is not and possibly do more harm than good to the already challenging reputation of a fine air= plane and company.

 <= /span>

I’d also like to see the community of Lancair Legacy builder= s and pilots grow.  My view is that any prospective builders/pilots conducting due diligence on the airplane and its safety history would be h= appy to see that the cause of a considerable portion of the accidents and f= atalities can be essentially eliminated by incorporating simple, inexpensiv= e measures.

 

jon

 

--_000_0705A91F9164914998F23A2F0BB661A91454C7NDMSMBX402ndcnasa_--