Responses embedded below…

The paper in questions has a number of signatures and is presented in a way (maybe not intended) that implies it has some authority.

The reader can associate whatever authority/credibility they see fit based on the knowledge, skills, experience, and information presented by the authors.

It suggests a hypothesis based on some anecdotal reports, offers some airflow diagrams without testing and a conclusion.

Cost, schedule, and risks constraints limit the degree of study on this problem. The airflow diagrams are notional to help illustrate the concept.  The aerodynamic and flight mechanics discussion and speculations on the problem are based on the probably imperfect simulation of the problem in the lead author’s (my) brain.  One does not need to be an aerodynamicist, conduct CFD analysis, or wind tunnel testing to conclude, if the canopy opens far enough in flight, there will be disturbed airflow downstream of it.  This is a photo of surviving pilot Dave Williams showing the highest his canopy opened during his accident flight:

There is no independent engineering data presented.

Independent of what?  The authors don’t work for Lancair so no conflict of interest there.  Engineering data does not just come in the form of plots and graphs.  Considerable funding is required to conduct a comprehensive engineering study of the problem.  Still, enough information is available today to form conclusions with reasonably high confidence.

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.

Yes, assuming you mean flying at a negative Angle of Attack, it seems like that might work.  We should probably add that to procedures to try if/when someone finds themselves airborne with the Legacy canopy unlatched.  Proving it will require expensive analyses or require flight testing and associated risks and costs.

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?

The paper does not just remind people to latch their canopy.  It’s a disservice to the Legacy community to characterize it that way because people who have not read it, who should, may not even look it over if you summarize it that way.

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.

Lancair has not taken an active role in addressing this issue – that’s why we have taken it on.  The avionics shop putting a warning light on the panel at the request of the builder is not a Lancair provided warning system.  Also, there has been no notification or service bulletin on this issue to current Legacy builders and pilots from Lancair.

Lancair operates in a delicate legal situation to all our benefit.  They design and build the kits but we are the official manufacturers.  This legal construct protects them from product liability issues with their designs, helps keeps them in business, and their costs (our prices) lower.  The consequence of this is that we as builders and pilots assume more risks.  Several of Lancair’s staff have been on distribution for the paper and its early drafts.  I’ve discussed with Kim Lorentzen/Customer Service the option of sending the paper out to their Legacy distribution list and she is checking on that option – but it has been several weeks with no response.

I’ve been told that Lancair’s previous GM, when issues like these come up, always emphasized “We’re not the manufacturer.”  I think that’s fine when dealing with the lawyers.  I don’t think it helps when working safety issues with the builder and pilot community of their airplane designs.  But, it is what it is…  Lancair’s endorsement would be ideal but we can’t let it hold up this effort.

It should also be noted, that although today’s 2014 Lancair Company owns the Lancair Legacy intellectual property, all the principles that participated in the Legacy’s development in 1998 and 1999 are no longer with the company.  And, from past inquires, it’s clear to me that the small development team didn’t spend that much of their time documenting the development’s supporting analysis and testing.  Today’s focus at Lancair is very much on their outstanding Evolution design.  So the very knowledgeable and capable staff at Lancair today is operating at a serious disadvantage in supporting the Legacy.  One could argue that the community of Legacy builders and pilots, with all their many hours of building and flight experience, may be the most valuable resource in supporting the airplane today…

Valin Thorn

Legacy Project

Boulder, Colorado USA