X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:31:45 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.123] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.8) with ESMTP id 4401094 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:16:39 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.123; envelope-from=super_chipmunk@roadrunner.com X-Original-Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=HhTGx8VLXXU+lKOBphacfoL/N3UHbp09R4oVR+MCMio= c=1 sm=0 a=RHTo7XKMIhQA:10 a=AZtpt8f/oEHyCMzygJE0eA==:17 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=pedpZTtsAAAA:8 a=ayC55rCoAAAA:8 a=2taTflRlCo-OvX32eqIA:9 a=hcp1H5tiDgKU-EmKAQcA:7 a=4zjypHXCSh2yATUYH7Vdli0HKAgA:4 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=eJojReuL3h0A:10 a=z7vrEz4WjFGNB67e:21 a=_M4i5WN4puv6OBt2:21 a=CjxXgO3LAAAA:8 a=CigBMU8T0OaUwDISCBYA:9 a=MiDthPlpHhs_nQe-VpsA:7 a=WOJYcmWwM_ksQZxtDdpQfQSqfpgA:4 a=rC2wZJ5BpNYA:10 a=AZtpt8f/oEHyCMzygJE0eA==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.65.71.15 Received: from [74.65.71.15] ([74.65.71.15:19041] helo=Laptop) by cdptpa-oedge02.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.39 r()) with ESMTP id DC/02-15856-205E64C4; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:16:03 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: From: "Bill Wade" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: LII Resale Agreement X-Original-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:16:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_022C_01CB28AD.002EEE40" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18197 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_022C_01CB28AD.002EEE40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable These are all good posts. I think Lancair is recognizing the need to = improve the safety record for the fleet, just as the founders of LOBO = do. Jeff can correct me but structural issues have not been the problem- = very few planes have come apart in the air. Anyone purchasing a = completed Experimental aircraft is required by the plane's Operating = Limitations to have an annual Condition Inspection done by an authorized = person- the original builder or an A&P. Rather than specify who should = do the inspections Lancair could simply require an inspection performed = by an A&P. In that way there'd be a fresh set of eyes looking at the = plane to see how it was constructed and maintained. That would be in = compliance with FAA policy and would not expose Lancair to extra = liability. One point- if the manuals for other models are as poorly organized and = out-of-date as the one I have for the IV-P, that not only makes it = difficult for a mechanic to understand how the planes are supposed to be = built but might cause problems for Lancair down the road. For example, = the supplemental gear door instructions are fairly detailed and = illustrated but leave out important dimensions. The ones in the manual = refer to several drawings that weren't included with my kit and = apparently are no longer available. Now, suppose after doing the best I = can to get them set up, the first time I do a retract in the air they = don't open because I didn't have the spring attach point located = properly. I have a gear up landing as a result. Whose fault would it be? = Something to think about. On insurance- I've heard the FAA's attitude on Experimentals was to = let the insurance market sort them out. There's no FAA requirement for = insurance. Anyone with a loan or with assets to protect would need it = though. Lancair and LOBO have taken steps to make insurance available = but ultimately the underwriters set the requirements, not Lancair or = LOBO. Perhaps Lancair could recommend certain training programs that are = acceptable to the insurance companies. Unless the rules change though I = don't think it's possible to get instruction in someone else's = Experimental, as they can't be operated for hire. It requires a trusting = friend. That generally means someone has to own a flying aircraft, then = learn how to fly it safely. I'd like to get instruction before mine is = completed- in a few years, who knows? Maybe it'll be possible.=20 I don't think any of the above should apply to uncompleted kits. Those = will be inspected prior to the Airworthiness Certificate and should = start with a clean slate. -Bill Wade ----- Original Message -----=20 From: randy snarr=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:57 AM Subject: [LML] Re: LII Resale Agreement 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 are 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 performance = 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=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 To that point, the requirement by Lancair for an insurance = inspection by their approved parties, and training by parties approved = by them, actually INCREASES their liability exposure, should a mishap = subsequently occur. They become much more than a supplier of components. = I would imagine tort attorneys would be salivating over these clauses. =20 Douglas W. Johnson MD, FACR ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stan Fields To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Sun, July 18, 2010 6:35:49 AM Subject: [LML] Re: LII Resale Agreement I 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 requirements in order to get or buy parts and support. I = appreciate Lancair=E2=80=99s efforts in finding and endorsing training = and inspection services. I intend to avail myself of both but on a = volunteer basis.=20 Lancair has made it clear that their role as manufacturer is = limited to building components, not airplanes, and that builders assume = complete responsibility for the purpose we choose to their components. = I=E2=80=99m ok with that. Lancair assumes no responsibility for the = =E2=80=9Cairplane=E2=80=9D nor should it create a mandatory = responsibility for its inspection or training. Stan Fields From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto: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 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: Further, 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 aircraft or upon first flight of an uncompleted kit inspected by our insurance inspection team. = The new purchaser must also agree to participate in any Lancair endorsed training program. These two requirements are, it seems to me, potentially very = expensive. An inspection by Lancair's "insurance inspection team" could = be thousands of dollars. The paragraph is awkwardly 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 the airplane has to = pass the inspection. =20 One of the benefits of building my own experimental airplane = is the privilege of using materials and techniques of my own choosing, = with nobody (except the FAA, sort of) looking over my shoulder. = Although I'm confident my relatively 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 from the plans, no matter = how insignificant, must be "corrected" before allowing the new purchaser = to register the airplane. I'm not comfortable giving up that much power = to Lancair. It's my airplane, not theirs. =20 The resale agreement also says that the purchaser "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 purpose perhaps, that = the "Lancair endorsed training program" would require who knows how many = hours in a Lancair, completed at Redmond. =20 The inspection requirement, particularly if it includes a = requirement that the inspection must be "passed," and the unbounded = training requirement, could cost a seller thousands of dollars, and = possibly tens of thousands. And I think the cost will fall on the = seller, even if the purchaser is the one who writes the check. Dennis =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_022C_01CB28AD.002EEE40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BF
  These are all = good posts. I think=20 Lancair is recognizing the need to improve the safety record for the = fleet, just=20 as the founders of LOBO do.
 
 Jeff can correct me but = structural issues=20 have not been the problem- very few planes have come apart in the air. = Anyone=20 purchasing a completed Experimental aircraft is required by the = plane's=20 Operating Limitations to have an annual Condition Inspection done by an=20 authorized person- the original builder or an A&P. Rather than = specify who=20 should do the inspections Lancair could simply require an inspection = performed=20 by an A&P. In that way there'd be a fresh set of eyes looking at the = plane=20 to see how it was constructed and maintained. That would be in = compliance=20 with FAA policy and would not expose Lancair to extra = liability.
 
 One point- if the manuals for = other=20 models are as poorly organized and out-of-date as the one I have = for the=20 IV-P, that not only makes it difficult for a mechanic to understand how = the=20 planes are supposed to be built but might cause problems for Lancair = down the=20 road. For example, the supplemental gear door instructions are = fairly=20 detailed and illustrated but leave out important dimensions. The ones in = the=20 manual refer to several drawings that weren't included with my kit and=20 apparently are no longer available. Now, suppose after doing the = best I can=20 to get them set up, the first time I do a retract in the air they don't = open=20 because I didn't have the spring attach point located properly. I have a = gear up=20 landing as a result. Whose fault would it be? Something to think=20 about.
 
  On insurance- I've heard the = FAA's attitude=20 on Experimentals was to let the insurance market sort them out. There's = no FAA=20 requirement for insurance. Anyone with a loan or with assets to protect = would=20 need it though. Lancair and LOBO have taken steps to make insurance = available=20 but ultimately the underwriters set the requirements, not Lancair or = LOBO.=20 Perhaps Lancair could recommend certain training programs that are=20 acceptable to the insurance companies. Unless the rules change = though I=20 don't think it's possible to get instruction in someone=20 else's Experimental, as they can't be operated for hire. It=20 requires a trusting friend. That generally means someone has = to=20 own a flying aircraft, then learn how to fly it = safely. I'd like=20 to get instruction before mine is completed- in a few years, who knows? = Maybe=20 it'll be possible.
 
  I don't think any of the above = should apply=20 to uncompleted kits. Those will be inspected prior to the Airworthiness=20 Certificate and should start with a clean slate. -Bill Wade
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 randy=20 snarr
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 = 7:57=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: LII Resale=20 Agreement


------=_NextPart_000_022C_01CB28AD.002EEE40--
These are all good points.
Unfortunately, the = actions=20 of a few (some of which are no longer with us) is driving this. = I don't=20 know the current regime at Lancair but I would imagine they = would prefer=20 to stay out of the training/inspection business.
I believe = they are=20 forced into this to improve the safety record of the fleet which = we all=20 benefit from.
I want the Lancair name to represent sleek high = performance personal aircraft not dangerous sleek high = performance=20 personal aircraft...

Which would you rather have, modest=20 standards from Lancair or the standards that would come from the = FAA if=20 we don't get off of their radar...

Randy Snarr=20
N694RS
235/320

--- On Sun, 7/18/10, Douglas = Johnson=20 <lancair1@bellsouth.net> wrote:

From:=20 Douglas Johnson <lancair1@bellsouth.net>
Subject: = [LML] Re:=20 LII Resale Agreement
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: = Sunday,=20 July 18, 2010, 7:52 AM

To that point, the requirement by Lancair for an = insurance=20 inspection by their approved parties, and training by=20 parties approved by them, actually INCREASES their = liability=20 exposure, should a mishap subsequently occur. They become much = more=20 than a supplier of components. I would imagine tort attorneys = would be=20 salivating over these clauses.
 
Douglas W. = Johnson MD,=20 FACR


From: Stan = Fields=20 <sdfields@austin.rr.com>
To:=20 lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Sun, July 18, = 2010 6:35:49=20 AM
Subject: = [LML] Re:=20 LII Resale Agreement

I=20 agree with Mark that the $300 transfer fee credit is a good = way to=20 ensure that Lancair can keep and maintain accurate aircraft = and=20 customer records. I also agree with Dennis that Lancair = oversteps it=E2=80=99s=20 role as manufacturer in tying training and aircraft inspection = requirements in order to get or buy parts and support. I = appreciate=20 Lancair=E2=80=99s efforts in finding  and endorsing = training and=20 inspection services. I intend to avail myself of both but on a = volunteer basis.

 

Lancair=20 has made it clear that their role as manufacturer is limited = to=20 building components, not airplanes, and that builders assume = complete=20 responsibility for the purpose we choose to their components. = I=E2=80=99m ok=20 with that. Lancair assumes no responsibility for the = =E2=80=9Cairplane=E2=80=9D nor=20 should it create a mandatory responsibility for its inspection = or=20 training.

 

Stan=20 Fields

 

From: Lancair = Mailing=20 List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Dennis = Johnson
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 6:44 = PM
To:=20 lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] LII Resale=20 Agreement

 

I agree with Mark that Lancair's decision = to apply=20 the $300 transfer fee to a credit for parts purchases is a = good=20 move.  I thank the new owner for that!  However, in = my=20 opinion the $300 was never an issue.  The following is a = quote=20 from their resale agreement:

 

Further, the = new=20 purchaser of a flying Lancair aircraft or an uncompleted kit, = and=20 prior to the
aircraft being transferred, must agree to have = either=20 flying Lancair aircraft or upon first flight of = an
uncompleted kit=20 inspected by our insurance inspection team. The new purchaser = must=20 also agree to
participate in any Lancair endorsed training=20 program.

 

These two requirements are, it seems to = me,=20 potentially very expensive.  An inspection by Lancair's=20 "insurance inspection team" could be thousands of = dollars.  The=20 paragraph is awkwardly worded.  It says the buyer must = agree to=20 have the inspection, but it doesn't say the inspection has to = be=20 completed and it doesn't say the airplane has to pass the=20 inspection. 

 

One of the benefits of building my own = experimental=20 airplane is the privilege of using materials and techniques of = my own=20 choosing, with nobody (except the FAA, sort of) looking over = my=20 shoulder.  Although I'm confident my relatively = small=20 modifications from the official plans would be acceptable to = Lancair,=20 there's always the possibility that some future Lancair owner = (we're=20 now on the third since I've been building) could decide any = changes=20 from the plans, no matter how insignificant, must be = "corrected"=20 before allowing the new purchaser to register the = airplane.  I'm=20 not comfortable giving up that much power to = Lancair.  It's=20 my airplane, not theirs. 

 

The resale agreement also says that the = purchaser=20 "must also agree to participate in any Lancair endorsed = training=20 program."  Holy moly, that's a requirement limited only = by the=20 imagination of Lancair. A new owner could also decide, = for=20 some insurance purpose perhaps, that the "Lancair = endorsed=20 training program" would require who knows how = many hours in=20 a Lancair, completed at Redmond. 

 

The inspection requirement, particularly = if=20 it includes a requirement that the inspection must be = "passed,"=20 and the unbounded training requirement, could cost a = seller=20 thousands of dollars, and possibly tens of thousands.  = And I=20 think the cost will fall on the seller, even if the = purchaser is=20 the one who writes the check.

 

Dennis   =20 =