X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:54:20 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-686060@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <sportform@cox.net>
Received: from fed1rmmtao10.cox.net ([68.230.241.29] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c1)
  with ESMTP id 685290 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:42:51 -0400
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.29; envelope-from=sportform@cox.net
Received: from [68.5.197.21] by fed1rmmtao10.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP
          id <20050829034204.BSYE1860.fed1rmmtao10.cox.net@[68.5.197.21]>
          for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:42:04 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622)
In-Reply-To: <list-685239@logan.com>
References: <list-685239@logan.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-76-950837238
X-Original-Message-Id: <90b2d26e817cb4350be38681588a6ab3@cox.net>
From: Barry Hancock <sportform@cox.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Lancair Accident Statistics
X-Original-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:42:05 -0700
X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.622)


--Apple-Mail-76-950837238
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	format=flowed


On Aug 28, 2005, at 7:13 PM, George Braly wrote:

> I disagree with the approach the FAA has taken to the problem in many=20=

> ways,=A0 but the problem needed to be addressed.

George, et. al.,

That is the crux of my point!  Is there an issue when wings come off of=20=

an aging fleet of aircraft?  You bet!  Do you instantly paint with a=20
broad brush and do things in such a manner that drive down the value of=20=

the aircraft when it's not necessary?  No!  However, the FAA has=20
clearly demonstrated in both the T-34 and T-6 (especially the T-6)=20
circumstances that they are not interested in finding a mutually=20
acceptable, nor logical in my opinion, approach to solutions...

Sooo, as it relates to Lancairs we need to be very careful in how we=20
operate, maintain, and train in these aircraft.  The FAA has already=20
demonstrated the willingness to suck all the fun out of flying by the=20
thoughtless actions of a few pilots/operators....

Barry

--Apple-Mail-76-950837238
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=ISO-8859-1



On Aug 28, 2005, at 7:13 PM, George Braly wrote:


<excerpt><fontfamily><param>Times New =
Roman</param><color><param>0000,0000,8080</param><bigger><bigger>I
disagree with the approach the FAA has taken to the problem in many
ways,=A0 but the problem needed to be addressed.

</bigger></bigger></color></fontfamily></excerpt>

George, et. al.,


That is the crux of my point!  Is there an issue when wings come off
of an aging fleet of aircraft?  You bet!  Do you instantly paint with
a broad brush and do things in such a manner that drive down the value
of the aircraft when it's not necessary?  No!  However, the FAA has
clearly demonstrated in both the T-34 and T-6 (especially the T-6)
circumstances that they are not interested in finding a mutually
acceptable, nor logical in my opinion, approach to solutions...


Sooo, as it relates to Lancairs we need to be very careful in how we
operate, maintain, and train in these aircraft.  The FAA has already
demonstrated the willingness to suck all the fun out of flying by the
thoughtless actions of a few pilots/operators....


Barry


--Apple-Mail-76-950837238--