X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:04:51 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [63.230.26.161] (HELO exchange.arilabs.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTPS id 6853490 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:06:38 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=63.230.26.161; envelope-from=kevin@arilabs.net Received: from exchange.arilabs.net ([10.100.100.1]) by exchange.arilabs.net ([10.100.100.1]) with mapi; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:06:01 -0600 From: Kevin Stallard X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:06:00 -0600 Subject: Re: [LML] Legacy White Paper Thread-Topic: [LML] Legacy White Paper Thread-Index: Ac9kpzldpubaVxzATdysucEOeeODdA== X-Original-Message-ID: <78E2CF6A-2CEA-4DCD-9A2E-9F7E90FA6158@arilabs.net> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_78E2CF6A2CEA4DCD9A2E9F7E90FA6158arilabsnet_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_78E2CF6A2CEA4DCD9A2E9F7E90FA6158arilabsnet_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Guys & Gals, Let me put it this way. If a pilot finds him or herself in a tight spot, something is going wrong. = Is there room for doubt regarding any action they choose and the expected = outcome? My big issue with this paper is that it leaves doubt in someone's mind as t= o whether or not they will be able to handle the airplane with a canopy par= tially open. Regardless of how much we try to protect ourselves with little gadgets and = knick knacks, you very well may find yourself with an open canopy. The problem we should be focused on aren't checklists and knick knacks, but= TRAINING. How do we respond and how do we practice this event so that n= othing more than having to empty your pants and re-secure the canopy and mo= ve on? This is the question we need to answer. This is the root of the pr= oblem. If the pilot has any doubt as to the outcome, their chances of survival go= way down. Please I'm begging you, don't publish this as is. Yes, it h= as informative information, but putting a secondary latch on the canopy onl= y begs unintended consequences. (LIke how do you get out when there is a f= ire). It sends people down the wrong roads looking for a solution. Yes I= know finding the right solution is going to be hard, but it is necessary. I understand the desire to have a solution now. But we don't. Give me 6 m= onths and we'l have some real data to talk about. Thanks Kevin On Apr 30, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Ron Jones wrote: Valin, Your Canopy Safety Issue Paper is outstanding. It should be read by all Leg= acy owners and pilots. Your reply to the recent criticisms is equally well written and well reason= ed. For all of those who think that they are so sharp and such fantastic aviato= rs that their personal, outstanding use of checklists solves most ills, wel= l, I just wish you would get out of Lancair's entirely. Not only are you an= accident just waiting to happen, you are driving up all our insurance rate= s with such arrogant, short-sighted thinking. Is this to harsh? Maybe. But spouting all this nonsense about infallible ch= ecklists really gets me annoyed. How many lives have to be lost before folk= s wise up? Of course checklists are wonderful tools and add to a safe fligh= t, but do they solve all ills? The record of Lancair accidents suggest othe= rwise. I suggest we all pledge to more carefully follow our checklists. I also sug= gest we actually read this canopy paper and appreciate all the hard work an= d talent that it represents. It could save your life. Ron Jones Sent from my iPad On Apr 30, 2014, at 5:05 AM, "Valin & Allyson Thorn" > wrote: --_000_78E2CF6A2CEA4DCD9A2E9F7E90FA6158arilabsnet_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Guys & Gals,

<= /div>
Let me put it this way.

If a pilot finds= him or herself in a tight spot, something is going wrong.  Is there r= oom for doubt regarding any action they choose and the expected outcome?

My big issue with this paper is that it leaves doubt= in someone's mind as to whether or not they will be able to handle the air= plane with a canopy partially open.

Regardless of = how much we try to protect ourselves with little gadgets and knick knacks, = you very well may find yourself with an open canopy.

The problem we should be focused on aren't checklists and knick knacks, = but TRAINING.    How do we respond and how do we practice this ev= ent so that nothing more than having to empty your pants and re-secure the = canopy and move on?  This is the question we need to answer.  Thi= s is the root of the problem.

If the pilot has any= doubt as to the outcome,  their chances of survival go way down. &nbs= p;   Please I'm begging you, don't publish this as is.  Yes, it h= as informative information, but putting a secondary latch on the canopy onl= y begs unintended consequences.  (LIke how do you get out when there i= s a fire).  It sends people down the wrong roads looking for a solutio= n.   Yes I know finding the right solution is going to be hard, but it= is necessary.

I understand the desire to have a s= olution now.  But we don't.  Give me 6 months and we'l have some = real data to talk about.

Thanks
Kevin



On Apr 30, 2014, at 11:= 11 AM, Ron Jones wrote:

Valin,

Your Canopy Safety Issue Paper is outstanding. It should be read by = all Legacy owners and pilots.

Your reply to the recent criticisms is equally well written = and well reasoned.

For all of those who think that they are so sharp and such fantastic av= iators that their personal, outstanding use of checklists solves most ills,= well, I just wish you would get out of Lancair's entirely. Not only are yo= u an accident just waiting to happen, you are driving up all our insurance = rates with such arrogant, short-sighted thinking.

Is this to harsh? Maybe. But spouting = all this nonsense about infallible checklists really gets me annoyed. How m= any lives have to be lost before folks wise up? Of course checklists are wo= nderful tools and add to a safe flight, but do they solve all ills? The rec= ord of Lancair accidents suggest otherwise.

I suggest we all pledge to more carefully foll= ow our checklists. I also suggest we actually read this canopy paper and ap= preciate all the hard work and talent that it represents. It could save you= r life.
Ron Jon= es

Sent from = my iPad

On A= pr 30, 2014, at 5:05 AM, "Valin & Allyson Thorn" <thorn@starflight.aero> wrote:
=

= --_000_78E2CF6A2CEA4DCD9A2E9F7E90FA6158arilabsnet_--