X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 30 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:02:14 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [206.246.194.60] (HELO visi.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.6) with ESMTP id 1823515 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 05:53:07 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.246.194.60; envelope-from=rpastusek@htii.com Received: from [68.34.115.162] (HELO DLHTPAX009) by visi.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2) with ESMTP id 193249507 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 05:51:51 -0500 From: "Robert Pastusek" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: More Boost Pump Summary -- the WORD from Joe Bartels X-Original-Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 05:51:56 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <032001c74b6f$267e6860$6701a8c0@htii.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 Thread-Index: AcdLSul416anlsjdQk26KwMFC4iiMwAIdqHg In-Reply-To: John Hafen wrote: ... If you have it figured out and are willing to share, please send me a copy of your "right" checklist to j.hafen@comcast.net. I must admit that I haven't made the checklist for my IV-P, even though I hope to fly this summer. BUT like most LML readers, I have an opinion. Having flown military fighters for 20+ years, I can tell you without reservation that the original checklists provided by the manufacturers--Lockheed, General Dynamics and McDonald Douglass in my case--were "starting points" for what we came to use over the years. Every one was constantly refined, adjusted and (in the case of the F-4 spin recovery procedure, completely rewritten), based on experience during actual operations. The emergency procedures sections were especially volatile, and changed frequently because of "lessons learned," many the hard way. I expect that Joe Bartels would have at least two concerns about trying to update such checklists: cost and liability. At one time I considered poling the LML as you are proposing to try to include some of our collective "lessons learned" that could be published for all to use, but one of my more cynical (and very practical) friends pointed out that few would appreciate the effort involved, and some one might hold me liable for doing so...so I have a rather large file of emails and other data that I some day intend to turn into my own "improved" checklist. I believe we're in a sad state of affairs with respect to product liability, but that's the way it is! Bob Pastusek