|
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models are as poorly organized and out-of-date as the one I have for the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.
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 -----
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
N694RS
235/320
--- On Sun, 7/18/10, Douglas Johnson
<lancair1@bellsouth.net> wrote:
From:
Douglas Johnson <lancair1@bellsouth.net>
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.
Douglas W. Johnson MD,
FACR
From: Stan Fields
<sdfields@austin.rr.com>
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’s
role as manufacturer in tying training and aircraft inspection
requirements in order to get or buy parts and support. I appreciate
Lancair’s efforts in finding and endorsing training and
inspection services. I intend to avail myself of both but on a
volunteer basis.
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’m ok
with that. Lancair assumes no responsibility for the “airplane” 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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|