X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 07:51:11 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from exprod7og107.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.167] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with SMTP id 6862324 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 07 May 2014 09:49:02 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.18.2.167; envelope-from=jsocolof@ershire.com Received: from mail.fins.org ([74.8.85.130]) by exprod7ob107.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKU2o5qhb/uDmOV8OMYffK60+Tw3hoza5F@postini.com; Wed, 07 May 2014 06:49:02 PDT Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CF69FA.E36D8B02" Subject: Legacy White Paper X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 X-Original-Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 09:48:22 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <4C1329C81FB629449A04A2D7FC1F8EFA4FBD54@defiant.fins.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Legacy White Paper Thread-Index: Ac9p+wMFdpnA+LtLTt6m8ZC9dgw/eg== From: "Jon Socolof" X-Original-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CF69FA.E36D8B02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The paper in questions has a number of signatures and is presented in a way (maybe not intended) that implies it has some authority. It suggests a hypothesis based on some anecdotal reports, offers some airflow diagrams without testing and a conclusion. There is no independent engineering data presented. I suggest, how about a nose down condition, might force the canopy closed, I can't prove it but it seems rational, and that's the problem here. I have no issues if the authors wish to offer an opinion which I agree mostly with, but do we really need another paper to remind people to latch the canopy or any number of other things? I believe Lancair is as concerned about safety as anyone. The latch mechanism as designed works, Lancair incorporates a warning sensor into their avionics installs. Builders can do the same. If the authors feels so strongly about presenting this paper, present it to Lancair and get their endorsement. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CF69FA.E36D8B02 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The paper = in questions has a number of signatures and is presented in a way (maybe = not intended) that implies it has some authority. It suggests a = hypothesis based on some anecdotal reports, offers some airflow diagrams = without testing and a conclusion. There is no independent engineering = data presented. I suggest, how about a nose down condition, might force = the canopy closed, I can’t prove it but it seems rational, and = that’s the problem here. I have no issues if the authors wish to = offer an opinion which I agree mostly with, but do we really need = another paper to remind people to latch the canopy or any number of = other things? I believe Lancair is as concerned about safety as anyone. =  The latch mechanism as designed works, Lancair incorporates a = warning sensor into their avionics installs. Builders can do the same. = If the authors feels so strongly about presenting this paper, present it = to Lancair and  get their = endorsement.

------_=_NextPart_001_01CF69FA.E36D8B02--