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’s 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 ‘fact’ 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’ve 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’ve learned that once they’ve made and tested their estimated structural limits for a given airframe, engineers then apply appropriate ‘fudge factors’ 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’t mean the recommended limits are invalid. Indeed, since there is a built in ‘fudge factor,’ 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’ve proposed the thesis that the designers of the 300 series Lancair airframe were ‘too conservative’ in setting structural limits for the fleet, but you haven’t 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 – it’s anecdote. As far as I’m 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, ‘Lancair's ARE safe!! They must be built and flow with ability and respect. All the evidence proves this. Stop scaring people!’

 

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 ‘scare’ in regards to warning people of the danger of exceeding factory-recommended structural limits. If by ‘scare’ you mean ‘warn of the danger’ then I agree with you. If by ‘scare’ you mean ‘interfere with one’s ability to enjoy the full potential of one’s aircraft’ – as you seem to imply based on previous posts – 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 – especially in-flight.

 

Respectfully,

 

Mark Sletten

 

 

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

From: vtailjeff@aol.com

To: lml@lancaironline.net

Sent: 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

To: lml@lancaironline.net

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’s 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’s skills and judgment were under constant review. Public post-flight reviews (to give you an idea of the mindset, we called them ‘critiques’) 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’m sure) ‘safety of flight is paramount.’ 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’s current effort to the contrary, you can’t 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’t 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 ‘safety culture,’ 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’t 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 – 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’s 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’t wait to see how some of these guys react to this one… :-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’s 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’re 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 ‘help’ a person will come to naught, because even the best, most obvious message is wasted if the receiver doesn’t get it

 

Even if everyone completely disregards this rambling missive, Jim, please don’t 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’s behavior. I’ve learned some of the most important lessons of my life after being shown (always unpleasant) how I’d 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’t do me or any other lister any good if the tone that is used to present the information prevents the information from being received.