X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 17:31:47 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from gypsy.chameleonengineering.com ([66.197.155.165] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTPS id 1121440 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 20 May 2006 16:14:33 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.197.155.165; envelope-from=rienk.ayers@sreyaaviation.com Received: from pool-71-102-241-246.snloca.dsl-w.verizon.net ([71.102.241.246] helo=Rienklaptop1) by gypsy.chameleonengineering.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1FhXpT-0004CJ-AX for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 20 May 2006 16:13:40 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Rienk Ayers" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: IVP Crash X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 13:13:29 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <00a101c67c49$e14489e0$6401a8c0@Rienklaptop1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A2_01C67C0F.34E5B1E0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gypsy.chameleonengineering.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lancaironline.net X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - sreyaaviation.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00A2_01C67C0F.34E5B1E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jeff, Thank you for reiterating the company line, and for helping make my = point for me. You say, =20 "As a qualified Lancair instructor pilot and FAA designated pilot = examiner I can say that the [Lancair IVP] is safe in the hands of a competent pilot = who makes good decisions." =20 The real question then is, who is a competent pilot, and which ones make [only?] good decisions? If the plane(s) can only be "safely" flown by pilots competent at a = certain level, and only if they always make good decisions... then obviously, = the ranks of qualified pilots is substantially reduced from those who might otherwise "safely" fly other planes. This is generally true for any high performance plane. What I am asserting, however, is not that it is = possible to eventually train every owner/pilot of a plane to be competent and = make good decisions (because such is not possible), but rather that even ultra-high-performance aircraft can be made more stable, and therefore "safer" to fly... or put another way - such a safer plane makes it = possible for more less-competent pilots (and less consistent decision makers) to = more safely fly the plane. Putting "safely flying the plane" another way... I mean that a broader spectrum of pilots can fly the plane with a reduced = risk of incident or accident. =20 I do not intend for my comments to be inflammatory. Rather, I truly = think I am just stating the obvious regarding the relative "safety" of the = Lancair aircraft. Please keep in mind, there is nothing inherently wrong with purposefully designing a neutrally stable airplane. For example, = aerobatic planes are designed somewhat that way, to accomplish a certain mission. = A pilot would be a fool to try to fly such a plane on such a mission = without proper training and a reasonable assurance that they possessed the competency and decision making skills that you refer to. But it is = foolhardy (if not deceptive) to say that just because a pilot like Dave Morss can safely fly a Legacy at Reno, that an average pilot can therefore fly the airplane in normal cross-country flight. We would never say that about a Bearcat or a P51 or an NXT... why then a Lancair? For in reality, the average Lancair pilot really wants a fast, sexy, cross-country airplane, = and doesn't really want to have to be aerobatic proficient to do so safely = (I'm not saying the Lancair is intended as an aerobatic plane - I just didn't know how else to make my point about proficiency). =20 Again, your point is completely valid. How many instrument rated pilots = have no business flying IFR because they are not proficient in so flying a = plane? Yes, with proper training, and thus hopefully competence and good = decision making skills, every instrument rated pilot should be "safe" to fly IFR. = But does that really happen? An honest pilot knows his limitations, and will remain within them. As an example; the allure of the modern glass = cockpit is that intermittent IFR pilots will be able to fly the "highway in the = sky" with a casual disregard for ongoing training in competency and good = decision making habits. I doubt that will ever be the case. It is my "opinion" = that the same is true for planes like Lancair. Yes, there are quite a number = of people who can safely fly them. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily = the same demographic of people who can afford them, let alone who buy them. =20 Let's face it. Lancair (as any company) is in business to sell more = planes. After the initial rush of wide-eyed pilots drooling over such = performance numbers, the reality of the time to build, the cost of doing so, and the qualifications to safely fly it, quickly diminishes the pool of likely customers. Lancair learned that lesson well in the two place market, and thus the creation of the 4P. I believe it is safe to infer, they later determined there are a heck of a lot more pilots out there who would fly = a fixed gear version if they didn't have to give up too much performance, = and thus the birth of the ES. Then they surmised there are also a lot of = pilots who would still go fixed-gear if they could also have pressurization. = They also realized that the high-performance 2- place market still had a = vacuum, and they developed the Legacy (which appears to be a phenomenal bird). = All to say, they are striving to develop more of a market by meeting the = needs of a broader base of customers. Again, that is what every company = strives to do. All I'm suggesting is that there may be a little bit of the "can't = see the forest from the trees" at play here. Just like with the ES, I don't think that Lancair would give up much at all if they added in a bit more stability and controllability in their airplanes - to make it more = appealing to a larger segment of the potential customer base. I know that if they = had done so, I probably would have bought one (my size not withstanding).=20 =20 I think we can all agree, there are four primary factors determining = whether someone will buy/build/fly a kit plane (maybe not in order): total cost, time to build, and flight characteristics - which includes both = performance and safety. I think that Lancair is doing fine on the first, working = hard on the second, has 'nailed' the third, but has room for improvement on the fourth. A triple isn't bad, but I believe they can easily hit a home = run. =20 I hope they do. =20 RA =20 -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of VTAILJEFF@aol.com Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 4:08 AM To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: [LML] Re: IVP Crash =20 Rienk, =20 Thank you for your reply. Everyone has opinions on this forum about everything under the sun. Some are qualified by training and experience = to offer their analysis of the facts-- many are not.=20 =20 You have made some rather serious allegations about the Lancair IVP's = safety record and its aerdynamic characteristics and flying qualities, but at = the end of the day you offer no factual evidence to support these opinions = nor any personal qualifications to support your opinons other than to say = "you have talked to a few people." I hope when you get the Envoy flying, = you and your product do not get flamed based on unsupported claims such as these. As George Braly and company would say, "show me the data." You = have not and cannot because there is no data to support your claims. If you = are interested in the Lancair accident record, I suggest you visit HYPERLINK "http://www.ntsb.gov"www.ntsb.gov or attend the annual Lancair forum at Oshkosh where the past year's accident and lessons learned are reviewed. = =20 After building and flying a Lancair IVP for over 3 years and 700 hours, = I can say with some authority that there are no stability/ controllability issues that I am aware of. As a qualified Lancair instructor pilot and = FAA designated pilot examiner I can say that the aircraft is safe in the = hands of a competent pilot who makes good decisions.=20 =20 Regards, =20 Jeff Edwards Lancair IVP --=20 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 5/19/2006 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_00A2_01C67C0F.34E5B1E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Jeff,
Thank you for reiterating the = company line,=20 and for helping make my point for me. You say,
 
"As a qualified Lancair instructor = pilot and=20 FAA designated pilot examiner I can say that the [Lancair IVP] is safe = in the=20 hands of a competent pilot who makes good decisions."
 
The real question then is, who is = a=20 competent pilot, and which ones make [only?] good = decisions?
If the plane(s) can only be = "safely" flown=20 by pilots competent at a certain level, and only if they always make = good=20 decisions... then obviously, the ranks of qualified pilots is = substantially=20 reduced from those who might otherwise "safely" fly other planes. This = is=20 generally true for any high performance plane. What I am asserting, = however, is=20 not that it is possible to eventually train every owner/pilot of a plane = to be=20 competent and make good decisions (because such is not possible), but = rather=20 that even ultra-high-performance aircraft can be made more stable, and = therefore=20 "safer" to fly... or put another way - such a safer plane makes it = possible for=20 more less-competent pilots (and less consistent decision makers) to more = safely=20 fly the plane. Putting "safely flying the plane" another way... I mean = that a=20 broader spectrum of pilots can fly the plane with a reduced risk of = incident or=20 accident.
 
I do not intend for my = comments to=20 be inflammatory. Rather, I truly think I am just stating the obvious = regarding=20 the relative "safety" of the Lancair aircraft. Please keep in mind, = there=20 is nothing inherently wrong with purposefully designing a neutrally = stable=20 airplane. For example, aerobatic planes are designed somewhat that way, = to=20 accomplish a certain mission. A pilot would be a fool to try to fly such = a plane=20 on such a mission without proper training and a reasonable assurance = that they=20 possessed the competency and decision making skills that you refer to. = But it is=20 foolhardy (if not deceptive) to say that just because a pilot like Dave = Morss=20 can safely fly a Legacy at Reno, that an average pilot can therefore fly = the=20 airplane in normal cross-country flight. We would never say that about a = Bearcat=20 or a P51 or an NXT... why then a Lancair? For in reality, the average = Lancair=20 pilot really wants a fast, sexy, cross-country airplane, and doesn't = really want=20 to have to be aerobatic proficient to do so safely (I'm not saying the = Lancair=20 is intended as an aerobatic plane - I just didn't know how else to make = my point=20 about proficiency).
 
Again, your point is completely = valid. How=20 many instrument rated pilots have no business flying IFR because they = are not=20 proficient in so flying a plane? Yes, with proper training, and thus = hopefully=20 competence and good decision making skills, every instrument rated pilot = should=20 be "safe" to fly IFR. But does that really happen? An honest pilot knows = his=20 limitations, and will remain within them. As an example; the allure of = the=20 modern glass cockpit is that intermittent IFR pilots will be able to fly = the=20 "highway in the sky" with a casual disregard for ongoing training in = competency=20 and good decision making habits. I doubt that will ever be the case. It = is my=20 "opinion" that the same is true for planes like Lancair. Yes, there are = quite a=20 number of people who can safely fly them. Unfortunately, that is not = necessarily=20 the same demographic of people who can afford them, let alone who buy=20 them.
 
Let's face it. Lancair (as any = company) is=20 in business to sell more planes. After the initial rush of wide-eyed = pilots=20 drooling over such performance numbers, the reality of the time to = build, the=20 cost of doing so, and the qualifications to safely fly it, quickly = diminishes=20 the pool of likely customers. Lancair learned that lesson well in the = two place=20 market, and thus the creation of the 4P. I believe it is safe to infer, = they=20 later determined there are a heck of a lot more pilots out there who = would fly a=20 fixed gear version if they didn't have to give up too much performance, = and thus=20 the birth of the ES. Then they surmised there are also a lot of pilots = who would=20 still go fixed-gear if they could also have pressurization. They also = realized=20 that the high-performance 2- place market still had a vacuum, and they = developed=20 the Legacy (which appears to be a phenomenal bird). All to say, they are = striving to develop more of a market by meeting the needs of a broader = base of=20 customers. Again, that is what every company strives to do. All I'm = suggesting=20 is that there may be a little bit of the "can't see the forest from the = trees"=20 at play here. Just like with the ES, I don't think that Lancair would = give up=20 much at all if they added in a bit more stability and controllability in = their=20 airplanes - to make it more appealing to a larger segment of the = potential=20 customer base. I know that if they had done so, I probably would have = bought one=20 (my size not withstanding).
 
I think we can all agree, there = are four=20 primary factors determining whether someone will buy/build/fly a kit = plane=20 (maybe not in order): total cost, time to build, and flight = characteristics=20 - which includes both performance and safety. I think that Lancair = is doing=20 fine on the first, working hard on the second, has 'nailed' the third, = but has=20 room for improvement on the fourth. A triple isn't bad, but I believe = they can=20 easily hit a home run.
 
I hope they do.
 
RA
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lancair = Mailing List=20 [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of=20 VTAILJEFF@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 4:08=20 AM
To: Lancair Mailing List
Subject: [LML] Re: IVP = Crash
 
Rienk,
 
Thank you for your reply. Everyone has opinions on this forum = about=20 everything under the sun. Some are qualified by training and = experience to=20 offer their analysis of the facts-- many are not.
 
You have made some rather serious allegations about the Lancair = IVP's=20 safety record and its aerdynamic characteristics and flying qualities, =  but at the end of the day you offer no factual evidence to = support these=20 opinions nor any personal qualifications to support your opinons other = than to=20 say "you have talked  to a few people."  I hope = when you get=20 the Envoy flying, you and your product do not get flamed based on = unsupported=20 claims such as these. As George Braly and company would say, "show me = the=20 data." You have not and cannot because there is no data to support = your=20 claims. If you are interested in the = Lancair accident record, I=20 suggest you visit www.ntsb.gov or=20 attend the annual Lancair forum at Oshkosh where the past year's = accident and=20 lessons learned are reviewed.
 
After building and flying a Lancair IVP for over 3 years and 700 = hours, I=20 can say with some authority that there are no stability/ = controllability=20 issues that I am aware of. As a qualified Lancair instructor pilot and = FAA=20 designated pilot examiner I can say that the aircraft is safe in the = hands of=20 a competent pilot who makes good decisions.
 
Regards,
 
Jeff Edwards
Lancair IVP

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: = 5/19/2006

------=_NextPart_000_00A2_01C67C0F.34E5B1E0--