X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 10:10:49 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-yh0-f50.google.com ([209.85.213.50] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTPS id 6854324 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 01 May 2014 08:17:45 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.213.50; envelope-from=pjdmiller@gmail.com Received: by mail-yh0-f50.google.com with SMTP id b6so2881761yha.37 for ; Thu, 01 May 2014 05:17:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.113.69 with SMTP id z45mr14024372yhg.0.1398946629375; Thu, 01 May 2014 05:17:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.1.109] ([68.202.57.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j46sm48526867yhc.14.2014.05.01.05.17.08 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 01 May 2014 05:17:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul Miller Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AEF5BC54-D989-4ACF-91D0-08C42CB7A82E" X-Original-Message-Id: <30292361-858E-4115-B0CB-51375C8A1076@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Legacy White Paper X-Original-Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 00:35:30 -0400 References: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) --Apple-Mail=_AEF5BC54-D989-4ACF-91D0-08C42CB7A82E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Kevin, I'm confused. First, how can any paper that leads to such = discussion be a bad thing? Doesn't it cause the parties to look at the = issue and possibly get that training you suggest--whatever that might = look like? Also, how can we do what you suggest ".. and re-secure the canopy" when = you also say "putting a secondary latch on the canopy only begs = unintended consequences"? How possibly can anyone secure an open canopy = without modifying the current setup? And last, where do you get the data to support: "If the pilot has any = doubt as to the outcome, their chances of survival go way down." In = fact, don't pilots have a better understanding of the issue after = reading all the experiences versus someone who has never heard about an = open canopy and then has one pop open? =20 Doubt and fear aren't bad things. They make me double check stuff and = stay on the ground sometimes. I just don't understand why you think the = masses won't be able to digest the material. The paper seems far less = scary than the warnings on a California wine bottle yet people all over = the world still drink from those bottles. It just seems extreme for = someone to plea to retract an article that is largely based on real = experiences and outcomes. Perhaps you could detail more of your = thoughts about retracting the paper yet somehow we'll find a way to = progress on training on the open canopy issue. If we pursue this a = little further we might even get Wings credit for the discussion. Paul Legacy On 2014-04-30, at 4:04 PM, Kevin Stallard wrote: 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 to whether or not they will be able to handle the airplane 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 event 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. This is = the root of the problem. 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 has informative information, but putting a secondary latch on the = canopy only begs unintended consequences. (LIke how do you get out when = there is a fire). 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 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, >=20 > Your Canopy Safety Issue Paper is outstanding. It should be read by = all Legacy owners and pilots. >=20 > Your reply to the recent criticisms is equally well written and well = reasoned. >=20 > For all of those who think that they are so sharp and such fantastic = aviators 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 you an accident just waiting to happen, you are driving up all = our insurance rates with such arrogant, short-sighted thinking. >=20 > Is this to harsh? Maybe. But spouting all this nonsense about = infallible checklists really gets me annoyed. How many lives have to be = lost before folks wise up? Of course checklists are wonderful tools and = add to a safe flight, but do they solve all ills? The record of Lancair = accidents suggest otherwise. >=20 > I suggest we all pledge to more carefully follow our checklists. I = also suggest we actually read this canopy paper and appreciate all the = hard work and talent that it represents. It could save your life. >=20 > Ron Jones >=20 > Sent from my iPad >=20 > On Apr 30, 2014, at 5:05 AM, "Valin & Allyson Thorn" = wrote: --Apple-Mail=_AEF5BC54-D989-4ACF-91D0-08C42CB7A82E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

And last, where do you get = the data to support: "If the pilot has any doubt as to the outcome, =  their chances of survival go way down."  In fact, don't = pilots have a better understanding of the issue after reading all the = experiences versus someone who has never heard about an open canopy and = then has one pop open?   

Doubt and = fear aren't bad things.  They make me double check stuff and stay = on the ground sometimes. I just don't understand why you think the = masses won't be able to digest the material.  The paper seems far = less scary than the warnings on a California wine bottle yet people all = over the world still drink from those bottles.   It just seems = extreme for someone to plea to retract an article that is largely based = on real experiences and outcomes.   Perhaps you could detail more = of your thoughts about retracting the paper yet somehow we'll find a way = to progress on training on the open canopy issue.   If we pursue = this a little further we might even get Wings credit for the = discussion.

Paul
Legacy

<= /div>


On 2014-04-30, at 4:04 PM, Kevin = Stallard <kevin@arilabs.net> = wrote:

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 to whether or not they will be able = to handle the airplane 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 event 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.  This is = the root of the problem.

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 has informative information, but putting a secondary latch = on the canopy only begs unintended consequences.  (LIke how do you = get out when there is a fire).  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 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 aviators 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 you 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 many lives have to be = lost before folks wise up? Of course checklists are wonderful tools and = add to a safe flight, but do they solve all ills? The record of Lancair = accidents suggest otherwise.

I suggest we all pledge to = more carefully follow our checklists. I also suggest we actually read = this canopy paper and appreciate all the hard work and 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" <thorn@starflight.aero> = wrote:


<= /body>= --Apple-Mail=_AEF5BC54-D989-4ACF-91D0-08C42CB7A82E--