Jon, I’ve embedded my responses within your last LML message below.  I apologize that I’d mistakenly concluded your opinions were formed before a thorough reading of the material in the paper. 

 

Valin

 

 

 

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 risks for pilots flying the Lancair Legacy airplane.  Over the Legacy’s almost 15 year operational history, there have been periodic accidents resulting 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 debates 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.  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 benefit 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 occur, it can sometimes be difficult to see a focused path forward.  The Lancair Company has also not taken 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 where 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 presented this way and may be mistakenly perceived this way.

 

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

 

  It draws conclusions based on seemingly anecdotal evidence with no empirical 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 considered anecdotal.  I think much of what is presented is empirical data.

 

 

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 scientific discovery.

 

 

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.

 

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 purchased before then…  Could 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 builders 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 previous 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 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 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 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.

 

I’d also like to see the community of Lancair Legacy builders and pilots grow.  My view is that any prospective builders/pilots conducting due diligence on the airplane and its safety history would be happy to see that the cause of a considerable portion of the accidents and fatalities can be essentially eliminated by incorporating simple, inexpensive measures.

 

jon