X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 12:40:20 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.48] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTP id 6861023 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 06 May 2014 12:37:28 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.62.48; envelope-from=jmorgan1023@comcast.net Received: from omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.71]) by qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id yfsE1n0091YDfWL55gcuEt; Tue, 06 May 2014 16:36:54 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.107] ([24.11.157.196]) by omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ygcu1n0024EXR5U3ggcubz; Tue, 06 May 2014 16:36:54 +0000 From: Jack Morgan Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_000366F2-BE47-4A3D-A6B3-24D2659EEA88" Subject: Canopy design/quality issue X-Original-Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 12:36:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List References: X-Original-Message-Id: <69AA2387-E0AE-4EB4-A1AE-CC5D8CCEEC20@comcast.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) --Apple-Mail=_000366F2-BE47-4A3D-A6B3-24D2659EEA88 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I own a 4P so have tried to hold off on comments but finally can't = resist. I suggest those that believe there is a design flaw get familiar with = the quality improvement processes that are now well established. There = are several sources going by names like 8D(old Ford document), = continuous improvement, etc. The basis of all of them is to first = identify root cause and all have 8 to 10 or so steps. Much time and = money was wasted by the industry chasing imagined design flaws with no = improvement in quality until these processes were perfected and = followed. Worse the old approach often introduced new quality issues = with no improvement to the original problem. I have no opinion on whether the Legacy flies safely with the canopy = unlatched but the issue reminds me of one of the several accusations = made against V tail Bonanzas which included door pops. In my 700 hours = in the Bonanza I managed to not properly lock the door and experienced = one=85=85 man is it noisy. A Bonanza was lost years ago in Phoenix to a = door pop and the resulting NTSB activity ended up not condemning the = airplane. I suggest that the white paper is a valuable reference to start the = process of identifying root cause and congratulate the authors. As such = it should not reference possible fixes as they may not be related to = root cause. Most aircraft crashes can be said to be caused by = uncontrollable airplanes but the pilot inputs to the controls are the = usual root cause given the envelope the airplane must be operated in. If = the allowed envelope is too restrictive the result is usually a higher = accident rate due to overtaxed pilot requirements. True quality improvement is hard work and requires much attention to = detail. Hopefully the interested folks on the list can propose actions = to establish root cause before moving on to the rest of the steps. Not = doing so could condemn the aircraft or worse increase the accident or = injury rate if unrelated "fixes" are implemented. Hoping to help. Jack Morgan On May 6, 2014, at 6:00 AM, Lancair Mailing List wrote: > From: Kevin Stallard > Subject: Re: [LML] Legacy White Paper > Date: May 5, 2014 7:10:14 AM EDT >=20 >=20 > Hey Hamid, >=20 > 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. >=20 > What if this canopy thing is a red herring? What if people only have = to get accustom to the wind noise in order to live? Is all the hubbub = and design effort necessary? We need to stop wringing our hands and fly = our airplanes. >=20 > The bottom line is that the premise of this paper is that there is a = problem 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 we don't shed a bright white light on the real cause. >=20 > Too many have successfully managed their airplane with the canopy open = for us to have to suffer any more negativity surrounding Lancair. >=20 > I ran into a Airforce pilot at KSLN the other day. One of his first = questions was "Isn't that airplane dangerous?" Uuuggg! I hate that = question. The Legacy isn't a dangerous airplane. And papers with these = kinds of premises (or is it premi :) ) get into people's head and wham, = we have a bad reputation. >=20 > Getting out of bed can be dangerous. Don't you see why we have to be = careful about the conclusions we draw on some anecdotal evidence? This = is all I am trying to say. >=20 > Thanks, > Kevin --Apple-Mail=_000366F2-BE47-4A3D-A6B3-24D2659EEA88 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 I own = a 4P so have tried to hold off on comments but finally can't = resist.

I suggest those that believe there is a = design flaw get familiar with the quality improvement processes that are = now well established. There are several sources going by names like = 8D(old Ford document), continuous improvement, etc. The basis of all of = them is to first identify root cause and all have 8 to 10 or so steps. = Much time and money was wasted by the industry chasing imagined design = flaws with no improvement in quality until these processes were = perfected and followed. Worse the old approach often introduced new = quality issues with no improvement to the original = problem.

I have no opinion on whether the = Legacy flies safely with the canopy unlatched but the issue reminds me = of one of the several accusations made against V tail Bonanzas which = included door pops. In my 700 hours in the Bonanza I managed to not = properly lock the door and experienced one=85=85 man is it noisy. A = Bonanza was lost years ago in Phoenix to a door pop and the resulting = NTSB activity ended up not condemning the = airplane.

I suggest that the white paper is a = valuable reference to start the process of identifying root cause and = congratulate the authors. As such it should not reference possible fixes = as they may not be related to root cause. Most aircraft crashes can be = said to be caused by uncontrollable airplanes but the pilot inputs to = the controls are the usual root cause given the envelope the airplane = must be operated in. If the allowed envelope is too restrictive the = result is usually a higher accident rate due to overtaxed pilot = requirements.

True quality improvement is hard = work and requires much attention to detail. Hopefully the interested = folks on the list can propose actions to establish root cause before = moving on to the rest of the steps. Not doing so could condemn the = aircraft or worse increase the accident or injury rate if unrelated = "fixes" are implemented.

Hoping to = help.

Jack = Morgan




On May 6, 2014, at 6:00 AM, Lancair Mailing List wrote:



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 get accustom to the wind = noise in order to live?  Is all the hubbub and design effort = necessary?  We need to stop wringing our hands and fly our = airplanes.

The bottom line is that the  premise of this = paper is that there is a problem 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 we 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 questions was "Isn't that = airplane dangerous?"   Uuuggg!   I hate that = question.  The Legacy isn't a dangerous airplane.  And papers = with these kinds of premises (or is it premi :) ) get into people's head = and wham, we have a bad reputation.

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

Thanks,
Kevin

= --Apple-Mail=_000366F2-BE47-4A3D-A6B3-24D2659EEA88--