X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:57:16 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web111416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com ([67.195.15.222] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.8) with SMTP id 4399325 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:28:48 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=67.195.15.222; envelope-from=randylsnarr@yahoo.com Received: (qmail 13147 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Jul 2010 03:28:12 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=d4aZGJmTps8261HtrgmybzHP8UKHD5q1X/xNvvJLwSJ+KvHbJxLf6InOG8RKq9qsULbKghN0Im+8tDY3ChXGoHkvZYorDDOjVLlrSXS445AyUdR4l93cLec7417qNh7MRF/Qblxj6+gH0WrzmxM3O0ti1YUJNM2fJdCGU/IyGPQ=; X-Original-Message-ID: <161208.10005.qm@web111416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: vSnuKbEVM1mVxSik7WEpAi76w.kcLtl0LBzsiic730pBrZ7 DaRryWLO4p6mpGy6VLyorFmjeEQ6rOt.ZjZViaX0YtltpzU4tQ.C6y140bEs V9dTKvPHdqXfWnxQ3UtwH05zgEDHX0SwciW7Yv9Kb589DStqDwMo88Y5IzsF QHEkVQOW91oE7e_XEOi0uGt02EJa2WaEj.LPIuYnjerT_55Jz0.1xqSwl0Dy yYZoKaRThRWSmnVgGAy_UjjulRMw0h5UKz4Q4l_QhvOe7eMQq0UHvH2YGaly NNIFs13ih.ixwVmWS05_dZ7.A5pt_NAACGyVj.lNs.BwMggNMhNKeFRRH4eB 9xrjPCA0wJmLBR4qftgCE1an.Pt9XfSeF Received: from [76.8.220.18] by web111416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:28:11 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/11.2.4 YahooMailWebService/0.8.104.276605 X-Original-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:28:11 -0700 (PDT) From: randy snarr Subject: Re: [LML] Re: LII Resale Agreement X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-983728963-1279596491=:10005" --0-983728963-1279596491=:10005 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable These are all good points. Unfortunately, the actions of a few (some of which are no longer with us) i= s driving this. I don't know the current regime at Lancair but I would imag= ine they would prefer to stay out of the training/inspection business. I believe they are forced into this to improve the safety record of the fle= et which we all benefit from. I want the Lancair name to represent sleek high performance personal aircra= ft not dangerous sleek high performance personal aircraft... Which would you rather have, modest standards from Lancair or the standards= that would come from the FAA if we don't get off of their radar... Randy Snarr=20 N694RS 235/320 --- On Sun, 7/18/10, Douglas Johnson wrote: From: Douglas Johnson Subject: [LML] Re: LII Resale Agreement To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sunday, July 18, 2010, 7:52 AM =0ATo that point,=C2=A0the requirement by Lancair for an insurance inspecti= on by their approved=C2=A0parties, and training by parties=C2=A0approved by= them, actually INCREASES their liability exposure, should a mishap subsequ= ently occur. They become much more than a supplier of components. I would i= magine tort attorneys would be salivating over these clauses. =C2=A0Douglas W. Johnson MD, FACR =0A =0A =0A=0A=0AFrom: Stan Fields To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Sun, July 18, 2010 6:35:49 AM Subject: [LML] Re: LII Resale Agreement =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AI agree with Mark that the $300 transfer fee credit is a = good way to ensure that Lancair can keep and maintain accurate aircraft and= customer records. I also agree with Dennis that Lancair oversteps it=E2=80= =99s role as manufacturer in tying training and aircraft inspection require= ments in order to get or buy parts and support. I appreciate Lancair=E2=80= =99s efforts in finding=C2=A0 and endorsing training and inspection service= s. I intend to avail myself of both but on a volunteer basis. =0A=C2=A0=0AL= ancair has made it clear that their role as manufacturer is limited to buil= ding components, not airplanes, and that builders assume complete responsib= ility for the purpose we choose to their components. I=E2=80=99m ok with th= at. Lancair assumes no responsibility for the =E2=80=9Cairplane=E2=80=9D no= r should it create a mandatory responsibility for its inspection or trainin= g.=0A=C2=A0=0AStan Fields=0A=C2=A0=0A=0A=0AFrom: Lancair Mailing List [mail= to:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Dennis Johnson Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 6:44 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] LII Resale Agreement=0A=C2=A0=0A=0AI agree with Mark that La= ncair's decision to apply the $300 transfer fee to a credit for parts purch= ases is a good move.=C2=A0 I thank the new owner for that!=C2=A0 However, i= n my opinion the $300 was never an issue.=C2=A0 The following is a quote fr= om their resale agreement:=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0AFurther, the new purchaser of a= flying Lancair aircraft or an uncompleted kit, and prior to the aircraft being transferred, must agree to have either flying Lancair aircra= ft or upon first flight of an uncompleted kit inspected by our insurance inspection team. The new purchas= er must also agree to participate in any Lancair endorsed training program.=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0AThes= e two requirements are, it seems to me, potentially very expensive.=C2=A0 A= n inspection by Lancair's "insurance inspection team" could be thousands of= dollars.=C2=A0 The paragraph is awkwardly worded.=C2=A0 It says the buyer = must agree to have the inspection, but it doesn't say the inspection has to= be completed and it doesn't say the airplane has to pass the inspection.= =C2=A0 =0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0AOne of the benefits of building my own experimenta= l airplane is the privilege of using materials and techniques of my own cho= osing, with nobody (except the FAA, sort of) looking over my shoulder.=C2= =A0 Although I'm confident=C2=A0my relatively small modifications from the = official plans would be acceptable to Lancair, there's always the possibili= ty that some future Lancair owner (we're now on the third since I've been b= uilding) could decide any changes from the plans, no matter how insignifica= nt, must be "corrected" before allowing the new purchaser to register the a= irplane.=C2=A0 I'm not comfortable giving up that much power to Lancair.=C2= =A0=C2=A0It's my airplane, not theirs.=C2=A0 =0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0AThe resale a= greement also says that the purchaser "must also agree to participate in an= y Lancair endorsed training program."=C2=A0 Holy moly, that's a requirement= limited only by the imagination of Lancair.=C2=A0A new owner could also de= cide, for some=C2=A0insurance purpose perhaps,=C2=A0that the "Lancair endor= sed training program" would require=C2=A0who knows how many=C2=A0hours in a= Lancair, completed at Redmond.=C2=A0 =0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0AThe inspection requ= irement, particularly if it=C2=A0includes a requirement that the inspection= must be "passed," and the=C2=A0unbounded training requirement, could=C2=A0= cost a seller thousands of dollars, and possibly tens of thousands.=C2=A0 A= nd I think the cost will fall on the seller,=C2=A0even if the purchaser is = the=C2=A0one who writes the check.=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0ADennis=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 =0A=0A=0A --0-983728963-1279596491=:10005 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
These are all good points.
Unfortunately, = the actions of a few (some of which are no longer with us) is driving this.= I don't know the current regime at Lancair but I would imagine they would = prefer to stay out of the training/inspection business.
I believe they a= re forced into this to improve the safety record of the fleet which we all = benefit from.
I want the Lancair name to represent sleek high performanc= e personal aircraft not dangerous sleek high performance personal aircraft.= ..

Which would you rather have, modest standards from Lancair or the= standards that would come from the FAA if we don't get off of their radar.= ..

Randy Snarr
N694RS
235/320

--- On Sun, 7/18/10, = Douglas Johnson <lancair1@bellsouth.net> wrote:

From: Douglas Johnson <lancair1@bellsouth.net&g= t;
Subject: [LML] Re: LII Resale Agreement
To: lml@lancaironline.net<= br>Date: Sunday, July 18, 2010, 7:52 AM

=0A
To that point, the requirement by Lancair for an= insurance inspection by their approved parties, and training by parti= es approved by them, actually INCREASES their liability exposure, shou= ld a mishap subsequently occur. They become much more than a supplier of co= mponents. I would imagine tort attorneys would be salivating over these cla= uses.
 
Douglas W. Johnson MD, FACR
=0A

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A= From: Stan Fields <sdfi= elds@austin.rr.com>
To:<= /b> lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Sun, July 18, 2010 6:35:49 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: LII Resale Agreement

=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
=0A

I agree = with Mark that the $300 transfer fee credit is a good way to ensure that La= ncair can keep and maintain accurate aircraft and customer records. I also = agree with Dennis that Lancair oversteps it=E2=80=99s role as manufacturer = in tying training and aircraft inspection requirements in order to get or b= uy parts and support. I appreciate Lancair=E2=80=99s efforts in finding&nbs= p; and endorsing training and inspection services. I intend to avail myself= of both but on a volunteer basis.

=0A

 

=0A

Lancair has mad= e it clear that their role as manufacturer is limited to building component= s, not airplanes, and that builders assume complete responsibility for the = purpose we choose to their components. I=E2=80=99m ok with that. Lancair as= sumes no responsibility for the =E2=80=9Cairplane=E2=80=9D nor should it cr= eate a mandatory responsibility for its inspection or training.

= =0A

 

=0A

Stan Fields

=0A

&= nbsp;

=0A
=0A
=0A

From: Lancair= Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Dennis Joh= nson
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 6:44 PM
To: lml@lanc= aironline.net
Subject: [LML] LII Resale Agreement

=0A

 

=0A
=0A

I agree with Mark that Lancair's decision to apply the $300 transfer fee = to a credit for parts purchases is a good move.  I thank the new owner= for that!  However, in my opinion the $300 was never an issue.  = The following is a quote from their resale agreement:

=0A
=0A<= p class=3D"MsoNormal"> 

=0A
=0A

Further, the new purchaser of a flying Lancair ai= rcraft or an uncompleted kit, and prior to the
aircraft being transferre= d, must agree to have either flying Lancair aircraft or upon first flight o= f an
uncompleted kit inspected by our insurance inspection team. The new= purchaser must also agree to
participate in any Lancair endorsed traini= ng program.

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

These two requirements are, it seems t= o me, potentially very expensive.  An inspection by Lancair's "insuran= ce inspection team" could be thousands of dollars.  The paragraph is a= wkwardly worded.  It says the buyer must agree to have the inspection,= but it doesn't say the inspection has to be completed and it doesn't say t= he airplane has to pass the inspection. 

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

One of the= benefits of building my own experimental airplane is the privilege of usin= g materials and techniques of my own choosing, with nobody (except the FAA,= sort of) looking over my shoulder.  Although I'm confident my re= latively small modifications from the official plans would be acceptable to= Lancair, there's always the possibility that some future Lancair owner (we= 're now on the third since I've been building) could decide any changes fro= m the plans, no matter how insignificant, must be "corrected" before allowi= ng the new purchaser to register the airplane.  I'm not comfortable gi= ving up that much power to Lancair.  It's my airplane, not theirs= . 

=0A
=0A

 

=0A=0A

The resale agreement also says that the purchase= r "must also agree to participate in any Lancair endorsed training program.= "  Holy moly, that's a requirement limited only by the imagination of = Lancair. A new owner could also decide, for some insurance purpos= e perhaps, that the "Lancair endorsed training program" would require&= nbsp;who knows how many hours in a Lancair, completed at Redmond. = ;

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0AThe inspection requirement, particularly if it in= cludes a requirement that the inspection must be "passed," and the unb= ounded training requirement, could cost a seller thousands of dollars,= and possibly tens of thousands.  And I think the cost will fall on th= e seller, even if the purchaser is the one who writes the check.<= /p>
=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

Dennis   


=0A=0A --0-983728963-1279596491=:10005--