Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 07:10:14 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-6858945@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=63.230.26.161; envelope-from=kevin@arilabs.net
From: Kevin Stallard <kevin@arilabs.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Legacy White Paper
Thread-Topic: [LML] Legacy White Paper
Thread-Index: Ac9mVw4U9vobi3SxT/Snb6I+oIQqxQ==
References: <list-6856221@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-6856221@logan.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Hey Hamid,

I'm not making an argument that requires data.  My argument and issue with =
the paper is that it contains no data and before we muddy the waters as to =
what is what we need data.

What if this canopy thing is a red herring?  What if people only have to ge=
t accustom to the wind noise in order to live?  Is all the hubbub and desig=
n effort necessary?  We need to stop wringing our hands and fly our airplan=
es.

The bottom line is that the  premise of this paper is that there is a probl=
em with the airplane when the canopy is open.  It isn't neutral about this.=
  Now folks are running off spending time designing this and that an if we =
aren't careful, insurance companies are going to require this and that if w=
e don't shed a bright white light on the real cause.

Too many have successfully managed their airplane with the canopy open for =
us to have to suffer any more negativity surrounding Lancair.

I ran into a Airforce pilot at KSLN the other day.  One of his first questi=
ons was "Isn't that airplane dangerous?"   Uuuggg!   I hate that question. =
 The Legacy isn't a dangerous airplane.  And papers with these kinds of pre=
mises (or is it premi :) ) get into people's head and wham, we have a bad r=
eputation.

Getting out of bed can be dangerous.   Don't you see why we have to be care=
ful about the conclusions we draw on some anecdotal evidence?  This is all =
I am trying to say.

Thanks,
Kevin


On May 2, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Hamid Wasti <hwasti@lm50.com> wrote:

> On 5/2/2014 9:19 AM, Kevin Stallard wrote:
>> I apologize for leaving that idea with you.  That isn't the intent.
> You are not leaving that idea just with me.  It is the gist of your=20
> argument and is obvious to all who are reading it.
>=20
> I am merely pointing out that when you go criticizing others for lacking=
=20
> rigorous proof while basing your argument on jumping to conclusions, it=20
> does not look good for you or your arguments.
>=20
>=20
> On 5/2/2014 9:19 AM, Kevin Stallard wrote:
>> We shouldn't release this as is.
> As tens of thousands have found out the hard way, the internet does not=20
> have an undo button. The report has already been posted, which means it=20
> is "released"
>=20
> Now if you can figure out a way to "unrelease" things already posted to=20
> the internet, you will make more than enough money to be flying your own=
=20
> Gulfstream (which does not have an open canopy issue) and not have to=20
> rub elbows with paupers who fly Lancairs :)
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Hamid
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.ht=
ml