X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:50:57 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-f178.google.com ([209.85.211.178] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c4) with ESMTP id 4030929 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:55:44 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.211.178; envelope-from=mwsletten@gmail.com Received: by ywh8 with SMTP id 8so4102013ywh.3 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:55:07 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; b=gHlRlSFf2MdLQOs91XxHdujFkL5kC3gguVVqNpliX0ZM/OYqEB4DPkvxNe1c3LpVOz X/LpEQbWMWkeYdZB66zCSgoJXIRb1pvUh4IR1xNJM7M4635XcehaWm+L9dd+BQySUCqa youBHQeT2UaKfhl9aoGIsgELfmETnmSWbEzvE= Received: by 10.101.178.20 with SMTP id f20mr1890178anp.67.1261245307708; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:55:07 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from MarkPC (208.65.124.116-dsl.stj.hometel.com [208.65.124.116]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm3161758iwn.12.2009.12.19.09.55.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:55:04 -0800 (PST) From: "Mark Sletten" X-Original-To: References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Tone on list X-Original-Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:55:06 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: <003b01ca80d4$671d8390$35588ab0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003C_01CA80A2.1C831390" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acp/9WMcTVQ3vzIcSdOuTTnD5I0kvgAwpTLQ Content-Language: en-us This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01CA80A2.1C831390 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Randy, =20 You keep suggesting those arguing against exceeding factory-recommended = structural limits are overly-cautious because a) you do it all the time, = and b) there have been no reported in-flight structural failures. These = are not logical positions; here=E2=80=99s why: =20 Regarding the no-reported-structural-failure argument: The lack of an = in-flight structural failure on any given flight proves only that no = structural limit was exceeded by that aircraft on that flight. = Conversely, an in-flight structural failure proves only that some = structural limit for that aircraft on that flight was exceeded, not = which limit, by how much, under what flight conditions or why. I can = think of any number of logical reasons for the lack of such reported = in-flight structural failures, many of which either have nothing to do = with whether or not the factory-recommended Vne is appropriate, or = actually serve to verify that they are. =20 Regarding your argument that you regularly exceed factory-recommended = Vne in your aircraft: Absent data from your flight test regimen and = analysis, this =E2=80=98fact=E2=80=99 has no bearing on the veracity of = factory-recommended structural limitations. As has been pointed out by = several posters with a great deal of aerodynamic design experience, = there is a scientific process to determine Vne for a given airframe. = They have told us there are many variations, such as material = differences and build processes, that make setting precise structural = limits (i.e. exceed THIS speed and the airframe WILL fail) for a fleet = of aircraft impossible. We=E2=80=99ve learned that, instead, design = engineers make careful estimates based on a host of design factors, then = conduct ground and careful flight testing to verify them. Even still, = unless a failure mode is exceeded (the airframe or a major component = fails) the structural limit is still only an estimate. Further, = we=E2=80=99ve learned that once they=E2=80=99ve made and tested their = estimated structural limits for a given airframe, engineers then apply = appropriate =E2=80=98fudge factors=E2=80=99 to account for the = variations. The end result is a set of conservative structural limits = for the fleet. =20 The fact that your airframe can exceed them (by how much, under what = conditions, using what specific materials, what specific build process, = etc?) doesn=E2=80=99t mean the recommended limits are invalid. Indeed, = since there is a built in =E2=80=98fudge factor,=E2=80=99 ALL airframes = should be able to exceed the limits. The question is, once you exceed = the recommended limit how close are you to the ACTUAL airframe limit? = The answer, of course, is each plane is different. Therefore the fact = remains, absent a rigorous flight test program for a given airframe, = operating the aircraft within the structural limits recommended by the = original designer is the best way to avoid structural failure. Have you = constructed and followed a flight test regimen to determine actual = structural limits for your aircraft? Have you applied the same = corrections for material and process variation as the original design = team to your results? If so, sharing the data and your analysis would go = far toward proving your position. =20 In previous posts, you=E2=80=99ve proposed the thesis that the designers = of the 300 series Lancair airframe were =E2=80=98too = conservative=E2=80=99 in setting structural limits for the fleet, but = you haven=E2=80=99t shared any relevant data to support it. = Scientifically speaking, suggesting others must present data to disprove = your thesis is backwards. You are refuting the scientific opinion of the = original design engineers; if you feel their design process was flawed, = then YOU must present the (relevant) data to prove your position. Simply = stating you exceed the limits all the time is not data =E2=80=93 = it=E2=80=99s anecdote. As far as I=E2=80=99m concerned, based on the = lack of in-flight structural failures, the original designers of the = Lancair 300 series airframe followed an appropriate scientific process = in determining safe structural limits for the airframe.=20 =20 In a recent post (see below), you wrote, =E2=80=98Lancair's ARE safe!! = They must be built and flow with ability and respect. All the evidence = proves this. Stop scaring people!=E2=80=99 =20 No one denies Lancair aircraft are well-designed and well-engineered; = the efficacy of the design is not at issue. The issue is whether or not = the aircraft can be safely operated outside of its design parameters. So = far, you have presented no evidence to support such a position. =20 Beyond that, I find it curious that you use the word = =E2=80=98scare=E2=80=99 in regards to warning people of the danger of = exceeding factory-recommended structural limits. If by = =E2=80=98scare=E2=80=99 you mean =E2=80=98warn of the danger=E2=80=99 = then I agree with you. If by =E2=80=98scare=E2=80=99 you mean = =E2=80=98interfere with one=E2=80=99s ability to enjoy the full = potential of one=E2=80=99s aircraft=E2=80=99 =E2=80=93 as you seem to = imply based on previous posts =E2=80=93 then I strongly disagree with = you. Indeed, operating within factory-recommended limitations is = PRECISELY what allows many (dare I say the majority?) to enjoy the full = potential of their aircraft with maximum peace of mind. =20 Indeed, enjoyment diminishes rapidly when a major structural component = depart the airframe =E2=80=93 especially in-flight. =20 Respectfully, =20 Mark Sletten =20 From: Randy [mailto:randystuart@hotmail.com]=20 Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 9:19 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Tone on list =20 To: The LML police,=20 Please open the attachment and read it all. These are not all the NTSB = reports to date but a very detailed list of Lancair accidents from 1989 = to 2005.=20 After reading this could you please report back the LML, pointing out = all, if any, Lancair's that came apart from exceeding Vne?=20 I did find one that had a bonded surface on a wing come off, caused by = poor building, but landed safely.=20 Again, these facts fully support myself and others. Not the opinions and = assumptions of the LML police.=20 Lancair's ARE safe!! They must be built and flow with ability and = respect. All the evidence proves this. Stop scaring people! =20 Randy Stuart LNC-2 =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: vtailjeff@aol.com=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 6:37 AM Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list =20 Mr. Stuart, =20 In reading my post and your post it seems you have misquoted me more = than once. I did not claim that these LML posts drive our insurance = rates or that your claim to fly beyond Vne affects our insurance rates. = What I said is that our insurance rates are driven by our accident rate = and that we need to change pilot behaviour [for the better].=20 =20 You have spent many posts defending your [IMHO suicidal] piloting = behaviour in flying beyond Vne. I have to ask myself why does this = person cling to this belief in the face of overwhelming arguments to the = contrary. In other discussions with other pilots like yourself on this = forum after a little research I have almost always found the pilot to be = a private pilot with very little total flight time who "believes" that = something they are doing that is patently dangerous is completely safe = and legal. One poor chap is now dead doing exactly what he thought was = safe. Look up the LML archives for Shannon Knoepflin.=20 =20 Personally, I would not gloat about the Legacy safety record.The Legacy = fleet is not far behind the IV's in total accidents. Fact: There have = been 8 reported Lancair accidents this year. 2 each IVP and Legacy. The = other four accidents occurred to 200/300 series aircraft. What has = happened to the IVP fleet in regard to insurance will happen to the = Legacy fleet--unless we as a community turn this around. Fact: Over 40 = per cent of all our accidents occur to pilots with less than 100 hours = in make and model. Fact: Over 55% of all Lancair accidents occur to = private pilots--while less than 40% of all pilots are private pilots.=20 =20 Is flying beyond Vne risky?--IMHO as a CFI and a DPE and aircraft = accident investigator--yes. Its also illegal per 14 cfr 91.9. If you = think your rates are low and flying beyond Vne is okay then "man up" and = send these posts to your insurance company and see how low they stay. = If you think flying beyond Vne is safe and legal then "man up" and send = this stuff to your local FSDO. They might be interested in talking to = you.=20 =20 As I stated in the last post, I and a few others have worked our tails = off for the last 18 months forming LOBO, developing a training program = and getting the insurance industry behind us. We have also been working = with the FAA to improve our Lancair safety record. Please do not screw = this up for us and auger in any time soon. =20 OBTW--after Shannon's fatal several of us contacted the NTSB and = forwarded these typse of emails to the them. You can read about it in = the NTSB report.=20 =20 Best Regards, =20 Jeff Edwards President LOBO changing one mind at a time. =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Randy To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Wed, Dec 16, 2009 9:02 am Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list Well, here we go again.... The sky is falling. =20 With the spirit of the "Tone on the list", again, anyone that said they = have flown beyond Vne is attacked.=20 Blaming us for your insurance rates because I said I have flown past = Vne? Now you've added we must be "Low time / Low experienced folks".. = Really???? =20 Year after year after year after year I've never had any problem binding = a full policy for my Lancair, for a very reasonable premium, nor has = anyone else I know with an LNC-2. LNC-4's on the other hand, the = Lancair's that do seem to cause many fatals, is hard to insure and = expensive.=20 And you blame that on a post on the LML??? Do you have any proof what so = ever backing this extraordinary claim? Are all the underwriters reading = this forum and raising LNC-4 rates because someone with an LNC-2 said he = likes to go fast?? No wait, it was " blatant risky behavior"... =20 My rates have gone down.... Hummm.. I guess I must be a "Good risk".. =20 This is not constructive criticism, this down right rude and abusive to = talk that way about other pilots. This is my choice, not yours, I don't = believe I'm "risky".=20 I don't raise your rates ( which is a ridiculous statement ). LNC-4's = have proven to be a bad risk thought the years, not LNC-2's or LNC-3's, = that's why your rates are high! And that's why LNC-2's are low.=20 =20 This is a great forum and there are many very experienced pilots and = builders here, and some of us fly past Vne.. And do aerobatics and close = formation, and race.=20 If you can't understand how a four place, high risk, very costly, = pressurized experimental aircraft has a very high premium, you should = consult an insurance broker and ask how they calculative the premium. I = would bet it's not from a post on the internet.=20 =20 Note: This was all written with a nice tone. =20 Randy Stuart LNC-2 =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: vtailjeff@aol.com=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:33 PM Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list =20 Mark, =20 Very well said-- and I might add that LOBO has been trying for over a = year now to get insurance at affordable rates for members-- but this = mission depends on reducing the accidents whcih in turn on changing = people's belief systems about risk and safety. If you post something = that smacks of blatant risky behaviour do not be surprised if someone on = the list makes a remark about it. Many of the folks who have held such = beliefs are generally low time/ low experience folks.Unfortunately, some = of them are no longer with us--and it is not because they quit the list. = Many of the commenters are the opposite. This is a great forum to learn = if one is willing to accept constructive criticism from some very = experienced folks in the industry.=20 On another note, I have been speaking to an insurance company that wants = us to help them identify who are the good insurance risks. Those owners = would hopefully qualify for a preferred rate. If you are intrerested = contanct me privately. =20 Best Regards--have a safe and happy holiday season, =20 Jeff Edwards President, LOBO -----Original Message----- From: Mark Sletten < mwsletten@gmail.com> To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:40 am Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list Jim, =20 Email is a terrible medium for communicating tone. It=E2=80=99s = difficult to accurately project and/or discern emotion via email. Often = a writer intends to be sarcastic in a humorous way, but it is received = as demeaning and derogatory. =20 Some of us military types grew up in a flying environment where = one=E2=80=99s skills and judgment were under constant review. Public = post-flight reviews (to give you an idea of the mindset, we called them = =E2=80=98critiques=E2=80=99) were mandatory, and all aspects of a = mission were evaluated for mission effectiveness and safety. For = training missions, the guiding principle was (still is I=E2=80=99m sure) = =E2=80=98safety of flight is paramount.=E2=80=99 For operational = missions crews might assume higher risks to get the job done, but = compromising safety for a training mission was , um, not in accordance = with official guidance. =20 Despite our government=E2=80=99s current effort to the contrary, you = can=E2=80=99t write a rule book that prohibits EVERY sort of dangerous = behavior/mindset/inclination. This, of course, is especially true in an = organization where such behaviors/mindsets/inclinations would be = advantageous, depending on the mission. There are many things you can do = with a USAF aircraft that, while not specifically forbidden, would be = considered dangerous -- even negligent -- on a training mission. The = problem is you can=E2=80=99t simply throw away a pilot you have spent = millions training for behaving stupidly on a single flight. And = sanctioning via official means (reprimands, courts-martial, etc.) = usually kills any chance of promotion, so you may as well count on a = person so sanctioned to punch out (of the service) at the earliest = opportunity. Understanding this, the leadership chooses to use peer = pressure to modify behavior rather than more official means. It turns = out the peer pressure idea works better anyway. =20 In a community so inculcated with the =E2=80=98safety culture,=E2=80=99 = engaging in behavior not officially prohibited, but considered unsafe, = was grounds for public humiliation during a post-flight critique with = the crews of all aircraft involved, and maybe even during a monthly = safety meeting in front of the entire wing. Such public humiliation = served several purposes including (but not limited to): =20 - It provides a teaching moment to show how easy it is to make bad = decisions - Those experiencing such public humiliation rarely repeat the offending = behavior - Those observing learned the hazard of engaging in such behavior =20 I don=E2=80=99t bring all this up to suggest ritual public humiliation = as a means to make all Lancair pilots identical automatons of safety. I = only wish to point out that while public rebukes may come across as = pompous personal puffing (and some may be), often it is simply a matter = of habit =E2=80=93 and old habits are hard to break.=20 =20 My suggestion is for both sides to attempt tone deafness. Those posting = their disapproval of others should make every attempt to post opinion = backed by fact and data, but absent the vitriol. If the subject = behavior/idea/mindset is heinous enough it will speak for itself. Humor = is often an effective tool to use in such cases, but beware the problems = noted above. If you want to be funny, be sure it=E2=80=99s funny and not = mean spirited. You might find them trite and silly, but adding an = emoticon to your text can be an = effective means of deflecting hurt feelings. (I can=E2=80=99t wait to = see how some of these guys react to this one=E2=80=A6 :-P) =20 Those on the receiving end of a critique should assume the best of = intentions on the part of the poster. Speaking for myself, if I offer an = opinion about another=E2=80=99s judgment or behavior, I do so with the = sole purpose of avoiding injury or bent airplanes. My guess is the vast = majority of those posting negatively have the same goal. In other words, = as difficult as it may be, when you=E2=80=99re getting spanked try to = get the message and ignore the tone. =20 One thing I would point out to those who truly have the best of = intentions (improving safety) when critiquing another: If your message = bounces off the defensive wall sure to go up after you deride his/her = ego, your best intention to =E2=80=98help=E2=80=99 a person will come to = naught, because even the best, most obvious message is wasted if the = receiver doesn=E2=80=99t get it =20 Even if everyone completely disregards this rambling missive, Jim, = please don=E2=80=99t quit the forum because you are unhappy with the = tone. I have learned some very important lessons while observing the = (often unpleasant) dissection of another person=E2=80=99s behavior. = I=E2=80=99ve learned some of the most important lessons of my life after = being shown (always unpleasant) how I=E2=80=99d behaved stupidly or = irresponsibly. Yes, it hurt, but I am forever grateful to the @$$holes = who pointed out the error of my ways. =20 Respectfully, =20 Mark Sletten =20 From: Jim Scales [ = mailto:joscales98@hotmail.com]=20 Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:52 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Tone on list =20 In my opinion the tone on the list recently, in a couple of the threads, = has gotten pretty abrasive. Rather than abandon a resource that I have = utilized for a long time, I thought I would make a couple of comments. =20 Seems that every so often there are those who feel the need to puff = themselves up and put others down. In my opinion it really defeats the = purpose of the list and turns other listers off. I'm guessing it also = greatly inhibits the willingness of a lot of people to participate. =20 After about 3 back and forth attempts to change the opponent's point of = view it would seem that agreeing to disagree would be the adult thing to = do. When all is said and done it really is each individual's right to = make his or her own decisions. =20 =20 To summarize, I participate because I want to be the best, safest, = smartest pilot I can be. I believe most of us hang around for the same = reasons. It doesn=E2=80=99t do me or any other lister any good if the = tone that is used to present the information prevents the information = from being received. =20 ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01CA80A2.1C831390 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Randy,

 

You keep suggesting those arguing against exceeding = factory-recommended structural limits are overly-cautious because a) you do it all the time, = and b) there have been no reported in-flight structural failures. These are not = logical positions; here=E2=80=99s why:

 

Regarding the no-reported-structural-failure argument: = The lack of an in-flight structural failure on any given flight proves only that = no structural limit was exceeded by that aircraft on that flight. Conversely, = an in-flight structural failure proves only that some structural limit for that = aircraft on that flight was exceeded, not which limit, by how much, under = what flight conditions or why. I can think of any number of logical reasons = for the lack of such reported in-flight structural failures, many of which = either have nothing to do with whether or not the factory-recommended Vne is = appropriate, or actually serve to verify that they are.

 

Regarding your argument that you regularly exceed = factory-recommended Vne in your aircraft: Absent data from your flight test regimen and = analysis, this =E2=80=98fact=E2=80=99 has no bearing on the veracity of = factory-recommended structural limitations. As has been pointed out by several posters with a great = deal of aerodynamic design experience, there is a scientific process to = determine Vne for a given airframe. They have told us there are many variations, such = as material differences and build processes, that make setting precise = structural limits (i.e. exceed THIS speed and the airframe = WILL fail) for a fleet of aircraft impossible. We=E2=80=99ve learned that, = instead, design engineers make careful estimates based on a host of design factors, then conduct ground and careful flight testing to verify them. Even still, = unless a failure mode is exceeded (the airframe or a major component fails) the = structural limit is still only an estimate. Further, we=E2=80=99ve learned that = once they=E2=80=99ve made and tested their estimated structural limits for a given airframe, = engineers then apply appropriate =E2=80=98fudge factors=E2=80=99 to account for the = variations. The end result is a set of conservative structural limits for the = fleet.

 

The fact that your airframe can exceed them (by how much, = under what conditions, using what specific materials, what specific build = process, etc?) doesn=E2=80=99t mean the recommended limits are invalid. Indeed, = since there is a built in =E2=80=98fudge factor,=E2=80=99 ALL airframes should be able to = exceed the limits. The question is, once you exceed the recommended limit how close are you to = the ACTUAL airframe limit? The answer, of course, is each plane is different. = Therefore the fact remains, absent a rigorous flight test program for a given = airframe, operating the aircraft within the structural limits recommended by the original = designer is the best way to avoid structural failure. Have you constructed and = followed a flight test regimen to determine actual structural limits for your aircraft? = Have you applied the same corrections for material and process variation as the = original design team to your results? If so, sharing the data and your analysis = would go far toward proving your position.

 

In previous posts, you=E2=80=99ve proposed the thesis = that the designers of the 300 series Lancair airframe were =E2=80=98too = conservative=E2=80=99 in setting structural limits for the fleet, but you haven=E2=80=99t shared any = relevant data to support it. Scientifically speaking, suggesting others must present data = to disprove your thesis is backwards. You are refuting the scientific = opinion of the original design engineers; if you feel their design process was = flawed, then YOU must present the (relevant) data to prove your position. = Simply stating you exceed the limits all the time is not data =E2=80=93 = it=E2=80=99s anecdote. As far as I=E2=80=99m concerned, based on the lack of in-flight structural = failures, the original designers of the Lancair 300 series airframe followed an appropriate = scientific process in determining safe structural limits for the airframe. =

 

In a recent post (see below), you wrote, = =E2=80=98Lancair's ARE safe!! They must be built and flow with ability and respect. All the evidence = proves this. Stop scaring people!=E2=80=99

 

No one denies Lancair aircraft are well-designed and = well-engineered; the efficacy of the design is not at issue. The issue is whether or not = the aircraft can be safely operated outside of its design parameters. So far, you = have presented no evidence to support such a position.

 

Beyond that, I find it curious that you use the word = =E2=80=98scare=E2=80=99 in regards to warning people of the danger of exceeding factory-recommended structural limits. If by =E2=80=98scare=E2=80=99 you mean =E2=80=98warn = of the danger=E2=80=99 then I agree with you. If by =E2=80=98scare=E2=80=99 you mean =E2=80=98interfere with = one=E2=80=99s ability to enjoy the full potential of one=E2=80=99s aircraft=E2=80=99 =E2=80=93 as you seem = to imply based on previous posts =E2=80=93 then I strongly disagree with you. Indeed, operating = within factory-recommended limitations is PRECISELY what allows = many (dare I say the majority?) to enjoy the full potential of their aircraft with = maximum peace of mind.

 

Indeed, enjoyment diminishes rapidly when a major = structural component depart the airframe =E2=80=93 especially = in-flight.

 

Respectfully,

 

Mark Sletten

 

From:= Randy [mailto:randystuart@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 9:19 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Tone on list

 

To: The LML police,

Please open the attachment and read it all. These are not all the NTSB reports = to date but a very detailed list of Lancair accidents from 1989 to 2005. =

After reading this could you please report back the LML, pointing out all, if = any, Lancair's that came apart from exceeding Vne? =

I did find one that had a bonded surface on a wing come off, caused = by poor building, but landed safely.

Again, these facts fully support myself and others. Not the opinions and = assumptions of the LML police.

Lancair's ARE safe!! They must be built and flow with ability and respect. All the evidence proves this. Stop scaring = people!

 

Randy Stuart

LNC-2

 

 

----- Original Message -----

Sent:<= /b> Thursday, = December 17, 2009 6:37 AM

Subject: [LML] Re: = Tone on list

 

Mr. Stuart,

 

In reading my post and your post it seems you have = misquoted me more than once. I did not claim that these LML posts drive our insurance = rates or that your claim to fly beyond Vne affects our insurance rates. What I = said is that our insurance rates are driven by our accident rate and that we = need to change pilot behaviour [for the better]. =

 

You have spent many posts defending your [IMHO suicidal] = piloting behaviour in flying beyond Vne. I have to ask myself why does this = person cling to this belief in the face of overwhelming arguments to the = contrary. In other discussions with other pilots like yourself on this forum = after a little research I have almost always found the pilot to be a private = pilot with very little total flight time who "believes" that something = they are doing that is patently dangerous is completely safe and legal. One poor = chap is now dead doing exactly what he thought was safe. Look up the LML = archives for Shannon Knoepflin.

 

Personally, I would not gloat about the Legacy safety = record.The Legacy fleet is not far behind the IV's in total accidents. Fact:  There have been 8 reported Lancair accidents this = year.  2 each IVP and Legacy. The other four accidents occurred to 200/300 series = aircraft. What has happened to the IVP fleet in regard to insurance will happen to = the Legacy fleet--unless we as a community turn this around. Fact: Over 40 = per cent of all our accidents occur to pilots with less than 100 hours in make = and model. Fact: Over 55% of all Lancair accidents occur to private = pilots--while less than 40% of all pilots are private pilots.

 

Is flying beyond Vne risky?--IMHO as a CFI and a DPE and = aircraft accident investigator--yes. Its also illegal per 14 cfr 91.9. If you = think your rates are low and flying beyond Vne is okay then "man = up" and  send these posts to your insurance company and see how low they = stay. If you think flying beyond Vne is safe and legal then "man up" = and send this stuff to your local FSDO. They might be interested in talking to = you.

 

As I stated in the last post,  I and a few others have = worked our tails off for the last 18 months forming LOBO, developing a training program and getting the insurance industry behind us. We have also been = working with the FAA to improve our Lancair safety record. Please do not screw = this up for us and auger in any time soon.

 

OBTW--after Shannon's fatal several of us contacted the = NTSB and forwarded these typse of emails to the them. You can read about it in = the NTSB report.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jeff Edwards

President LOBO

changing one mind at a time.

 




 

-----Original = Message-----
From: Randy <randystuart@hotmail.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Wed, Dec 16, 2009 9:02 am
Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list

Well, here we go again.... The sky is = falling.

 

With the spirit of the "Tone on the list", = again, anyone that said they have flown beyond Vne is attacked. =

Blaming us for your insurance rates because I said I have = flown past Vne? Now you've added we must be "Low time / Low experienced folks".. Really????

 

Year after year after year after year I've never had any = problem binding a full policy for my Lancair, for a very reasonable premium, nor = has anyone else I know with an LNC-2. LNC-4's on the other hand, the = Lancair's that do seem to cause many fatals, is hard to insure and expensive. =

And you blame that on a post on the LML??? Do you have any = proof what so ever backing this extraordinary claim? Are all the underwriters = reading this forum and raising LNC-4 rates because someone with an LNC-2 said he = likes to go fast?? No wait, it was " blatant risky = behavior"...  

My rates have gone down.... Hummm.. I guess I must be a = "Good risk"..

 

This is not constructive criticism, this down right rude = and abusive to talk that way about other pilots. This is my choice, not = yours, I don't believe I'm "risky". 

I don't raise your rates ( which is a ridiculous statement = ). LNC-4's have proven to be a bad risk thought the years, not LNC-2's or LNC-3's, that's why your rates are high! And that's why LNC-2's = are low.

 

This is a great forum and there are many very experienced = pilots and builders here, and some of us fly past Vne.. And do aerobatics and close formation, and race.

If you can't understand how a four place, high risk, very costly, pressurized experimental aircraft has a very high premium, = you should consult an insurance broker and ask how they calculative the = premium. I would bet it's not from a post on the internet.

 

Note: This was all written with a nice = tone.

 

Randy Stuart

LNC-2

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: = vtailjeff@aol.com =

Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:33 PM

Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list

 

Mark,

 

Very well said-- and I might add that LOBO has been trying = for over a year now to get insurance at affordable rates for members-- but = this mission depends on reducing the accidents whcih in turn on changing = people's belief systems about risk and safety. If you post something that smacks = of blatant risky behaviour do not be surprised if someone on the list makes = a remark about it. Many of the folks who have held such beliefs are = generally low time/ low experience folks.Unfortunately, some of them are no longer = with us--and it is not because they quit the list.  Many of the = commenters are the opposite. This is a great forum to learn if one is willing to accept constructive criticism from some very experienced folks in the industry. =

On another note, I have been speaking to an insurance = company that wants us to help them identify who are the good insurance risks. Those owners would hopefully qualify for a preferred rate. If  you are intrerested contanct me privately.

 

Best Regards--have a safe and happy holiday = season,

 

Jeff Edwards

President, = LOBO

-----Original = Message-----
From: Mark Sletten <mwsletten@gmail.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:40 am
Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list

Jim,

 

Email is a terrible medium for communicating tone. = It=E2=80=99s difficult to accurately project and/or discern emotion via email. Often = a writer intends to be sarcastic in a humorous way, but it is received as demeaning and derogatory.

 

Some of us military types grew up in a flying environment = where one=E2=80=99s skills and judgment were under constant review. Public = post-flight reviews (to give you an idea of the mindset, we called them = =E2=80=98critiques=E2=80=99) were mandatory, and all aspects of a mission were evaluated for mission = effectiveness and safety. For training missions, the guiding principle was (still is = I=E2=80=99m sure) =E2=80=98safety of flight is paramount.=E2=80=99 For operational = missions crews might assume higher risks to get the job done, but compromising safety for a = training mission was , um, not in accordance with official guidance.

 

Despite our government=E2=80=99s current effort to the = contrary, you can=E2=80=99t write a rule book that prohibits EVERY sort of dangerous behavior/mindset/inclination. This, of course, is especially true in an organization where such behaviors/mindsets/inclinations would be = advantageous, depending on the mission. There are many things you can do with a USAF = aircraft that, while not specifically forbidden, would be considered dangerous -- = even negligent -- on a training mission. The problem is you can=E2=80=99t = simply throw away a pilot you have spent millions training for behaving stupidly on a = single flight. And sanctioning via official means (reprimands, courts-martial, = etc.) usually kills any chance of promotion, so you may as well count on a = person so sanctioned to punch out (of the service) at the earliest opportunity. Understanding this, the leadership chooses to use peer pressure to = modify behavior rather than more official means. It turns out the peer pressure = idea works better anyway.

 

In a  community so inculcated with the = =E2=80=98safety culture,=E2=80=99 engaging in behavior not officially prohibited, but considered unsafe, = was grounds for public humiliation during a post-flight critique with the = crews of all aircraft involved, and maybe even during a monthly safety meeting in = front of the entire wing. Such public humiliation served several purposes = including (but not limited to):

 

- It provides a teaching moment to show how easy it is to = make bad decisions

- Those experiencing such public humiliation rarely = repeat the offending behavior

- Those observing learned the hazard of engaging in such behavior

 

I don=E2=80=99t bring all this up to suggest ritual = public humiliation as a means to make all Lancair pilots identical automatons of safety. I = only wish to point out that while public rebukes may come across as pompous = personal puffing (and some may be), often it is simply a matter of habit = =E2=80=93 and old habits are hard to break.

 

My suggestion is for both sides to attempt tone deafness. = Those posting their disapproval of others should make every attempt to post = opinion backed by fact and data, but absent the vitriol. If the subject behavior/idea/mindset is heinous enough it will speak for itself. Humor = is often an effective tool to use in such cases, but beware the problems = noted above. If you want to be funny, be sure it=E2=80=99s funny and not mean = spirited. You might find them trite and silly, but adding an emoticon to your text can be an = effective means of deflecting hurt feelings. (I can=E2=80=99t wait to see how some = of these guys react to this one=E2=80=A6 :-P)

 

Those on the receiving end of a critique should assume = the best of intentions on the part of the poster. Speaking for myself, if I offer = an opinion about another=E2=80=99s judgment or behavior, I do so with the = sole purpose of avoiding injury or bent airplanes. My guess is the vast majority of = those posting negatively have the same goal. In other words, as difficult as = it may be, when you=E2=80=99re getting spanked try to get the message and = ignore the tone.

 

One thing I would point out to those who truly have the = best of intentions (improving safety) when critiquing another: If your message = bounces off the defensive wall sure to go up after you deride his/her ego, your = best intention to =E2=80=98help=E2=80=99 a person will come to naught, = because even the best, most obvious message is wasted if the receiver doesn=E2=80=99t get = it

 

Even if everyone completely disregards this rambling = missive, Jim, please don=E2=80=99t quit the forum because you are unhappy with = the tone. I have learned some very important lessons while observing the (often = unpleasant) dissection of another person=E2=80=99s behavior. I=E2=80=99ve learned = some of the most important lessons of my life after being shown (always unpleasant) how = I=E2=80=99d behaved stupidly or irresponsibly. Yes, it hurt, but I am forever = grateful to the @$$holes who pointed out the error of my ways.

 

Respectfully,

 

Mark Sletten

 

From: Jim Scales [mailto:joscales98@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:52 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Tone on list

 

In my opinion the tone on the list recently, in a = couple of the threads, has gotten pretty abrasive.  Rather than abandon = a resource that I have utilized for a long time, I thought I would make a = couple of comments.

 

Seems that every so often there are those = who feel the need to puff themselves up and put others down.  In my opinion it really defeats the purpose of the list and turns other listers off.  I'm = guessing it also greatly inhibits the willingness of a lot of people to = participate.

 

After about 3 back and forth attempts to change the = opponent's point of view it would seem that agreeing to disagree would be the adult = thing to do.  When all is said and done it really is each individual's = right to make his or her own decisions. 

 

To summarize, I participate because I want to be the best, = safest, smartest pilot I can be.  I believe most of us hang around for the = same reasons.  It doesn=E2=80=99t do me or any other lister any good if = the tone that is used to present the information prevents the information from being received. 

------=_NextPart_000_003C_01CA80A2.1C831390--