X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:23:54 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: <2luv2fly@cox.net> Received: from eastrmmtao101.cox.net ([68.230.240.7] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTP id 3457890 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:05:01 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.240.7; envelope-from=2luv2fly@cox.net Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmmtao101.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090129020426.ESYH15713.eastrmmtao101.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net>; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:04:26 -0500 Received: from 308h101 ([70.161.126.117]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id 9E4R1b00Y2Y64ku02E4RLc; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:04:25 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=HFtcIt7gEC8ZrzBqzdQA:9 a=yJutBCLByY5WckcXKlsA:7 a=mmIfpsaERegS92SwIXBPmFWYMzgA:4 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=5FtdkfQUxfIA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-Original-Message-ID: <9A409CE3CDF94D96850B8699B5E86291@308h101> From: "Janie & Ed Smith" <2luv2fly@cox.net> X-Original-To: "Lancair List" Subject: N9JE Operating Limitations X-Original-Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:04:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Wednesday Evening 1/28/09 Ok Jim - obviously you are trying to make a point? And exactly what point are you trying to make? I got this same email at our personal address and now it is posted all over the LML. Is this an intentional attempt to discredit our phase one testing? Is it your responsibility to "police" something that you don't know all of the facts? Our Operating Limitations (item #10) state: "During the flight testing phase, no person may be carried in this aircraft during the flight "UNLESS" that person is essential to the purpose or "SAFETY" of the flight". (emphasis added by me) With those limitations, it is my responsibility to determine who and what is essential for the safety of the flight. You have no idea what the purpose of that flight was....... I don't mind telling you - it was for some stall testing - something I approach with great caution and if I have someone who has been there and done that - I consider them ESSENTIAL for the safety of the flight. There have been enough postings about how the IV-P's stall that I knew I needed some help with that part of my testing. I'm sure that BOTH Charlie and Joe are concerned about safety. We built an outstanding airplane that has passed every part of the airworthiness and test phase with high marks, but I felt much more at ease with some help on the stall test. What Joe ought to "love" is the fact that I built our airplane to a high standard and is an excellent example of what Lancair is all about. Did I answer your question? I would prefer to discuss this off the list if you don't mind. Regards, Ed Smith ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Auman" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 2:24 PM Subject: [LML] FW: First Flight N9JE > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Auman [mailto:jimauman@comcast.net] > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 3:01 PM > To: 'Janie & Ed Smith' > Subject: RE: First Flight N9JE > > Why are there 2 heads in a Phase 1 aircraft during first flight? Hmmmm. > > Ops Limits number 10 violation??? > > > Is this what Charlie Kohler advised you to do? > > I'm sure Joe Bartels will love that! >