It is pure speculation to suggest any ‘reasoning’ behind Lancair Inc’s new ownership transfer policy. We all know this list is monitored by Lancair Inc employees, including Joe Bartels. If Lancair Inc wished, it could explain in no uncertain terms its intentions and goals. It could explain the purpose and need for a $300 fee. It could explain why only Lancair Inc may inspect aircraft despite the fact there are any number of people and businesses with the technical qualifications to ensure a Lancair kit is properly constructed or maintained. It could explain why the only satisfactory Lancair training programs are those Lancair Inc endorses.

 

So far, the silence from Lancair Inc is deafening.

 

When I purchased my Legacy FG kit I was given the impression my purchase entitled me to any and all technical support I needed from Lancair Inc.; I was not told of a time limit. From what I’ve read, I believe the majority of original builders got the same impression. In my mind, Lancair agreed – in essence – to provide technical support to me for the lifetime of the aircraft. I assumed the cost of that support was included in the cost of the kit; I paid for it – this seems inarguable. I don’t understand why a new owner should have to pay for something that has already been paid for. When I buy a late-model used car I get the remainder of the warranty, I don’t have to pay for it again.

 

The only point of debate that seems relevant is the suggestion by some a $300 fee is justified because a ‘new’ owner will require more technical support than the original owner. This is an assumption not based on fact.

 

What if the new owner is a previous Lancair owner who is replacing an aircraft destroyed by a natural disaster? What if the new owner is a build-for-hire outfit that has completed several Lancair kits? What if a ‘new’ owner holds an A&P/IA and works for a major composite aircraft manufacturer? What if (s)he is a former Lancair employee who worked in the build shop? Would these new owners require more or less technical support than the original owner?

 

Nowhere in the resale agreement does it explain the purpose of the $300 fee, or what value a new owner gets for it other than access to two things: 1) Lancair support, which the original owner already paid for, and 2) parts, which the new owner will have to pay for.

 

It’s in Lancair Inc’s best interest that its kits be properly built, and properly maintained once completed. The ONLY way that will happen is if owners contact Lancair when they have a question and/or Lancair knows who to contact about parts recalls or safety bulletins. Doesn’t requiring a fee (not to mention proprietary inspections and training) discourage new owners from seeking Lancair Inc’s support? Wouldn’t this serve to INCREASE Lancair Inc’s liability?

 

Let’s say you walk in the door of any widget business in the universe with your newly purchased widget to find out if there are any recalls or notices about safety problems. You tell the guy behind the desk why you’re there and he says, “Sure, I can tell you that, but before I do you gotta pay me $300 bucks, a couple thousand to have your widget inspected and a couple more so I can train you how to use it.”

 

“What’s the $300 bucks for?”

 

“Technical support.”

 

“But I don’t need technical support, I just want to know about recalls and safety notices on widgets you sold three years ago.”

 

“Well then, it’s an administrative fee.”

 

“But all you have to do is type my name and address in your database.”

 

“Hey, you wanna do business or what?”

 

Would you take out your wallet, or walk back out the door?

 

 

Mark Sletten

 

 

 

Rob has pretty well summed up my perspective on the issue.   What about the new owner who refuses to pay the fee and substitutes sub standard parts? If an accident results, could Lancair be held partially responsible?   The accident will impact all of us in insurance / training / regulatory costs.   Parts are parts. Charge a reasonable price and sell them to whoever wants them.   Bill Hannahan wfhannahan@yahoo.com --- On Sat, 6/5/10, rwolf99@aol.com <rwolf99@aol.com> wrote: From: rwolf99@aol.com <rwolf99@aol.com> Subject: [LML] Re: Transfer of Ownership To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 2:19 PM I've re-read my posting, and reviewed all the other comments, and have come to the conclusion that my initial response was a little too strident.  (It would not be the first time in my life that I've done that.)  Anyway, I separate this into different issues, and have some more comments:   Paying for builder assistance is not in itself a problem.  A certain amount should be included with the purchase of the kit but an unlimited amount is too much to ask.  $300?  As good a number as any.  But I would consider the right to purchase parts for an airplane in progress to be different.  (And yes, I realize that we don't have a "right" to patronize any business, but bear with me here...)   In the olden days of plans-built aircraft, it was not uncommon for someone to build his airplane and pass the plans on to someone else.  A license transfer fee was reasonable and appropriate.  In fact, I would contend that what you actually purchased was not the plans per se, but a license to use the design data to produce a single airplane.  If you finished your plane and gave the plans to a buddy, he *should* pay a new license fee for the right to use the data, even if that data came from the identical piece of paper.  On the other hand, if you sold your project you also sold your license to use the data, i.e., the license was transferable.  Joe's the lawyer, not me, so I assume he knows these matters better than I do.   Where I have a problem is requiring a "factory inspection" and "mandatory training from a factory-approved source" before replacement pats can be purchased from Lancair.  I do accept that they have every right to establish this policy but it is something I disagree with.  Will we have airplanes that "pass" or "fail"?  Will they give the new buyer a punch list of things to replace or change before they will sell a new nose gear strut?  What if I believe that my non-certified power distribution system is better than their non-certified power distribution system?  Do I need to get a DER to certify that it's airworthy before I can buy a new canopy latch?   Examples -- Maybe two electronic ignitions without a backup battery is okay and maybe it isn't.  Maybe a single vacuum system without a backup attitude indicator is not "approved" by the factory, even though it was good enough for Beech, Piper, Cessna and the FAA for 50 years.  Who says whether something good enough or not?  An EAA Technical Advisor?  Who says "okay, you can buy parts"?  And there are plenty of places where NAPA Air Parts are just fine, although I can proudly say that there are no Radio Shack parts in *my* airplane.  What will Lancair's position be on this?   1)  The FAA has established criteria for airworthiness, even for experimental airplanes.  They issue certificates that say so.  Every flying airplane has one.  Why should Lancair be able to declare it not valid?   2)  As for training, the FAA has not established a type rating requirement for non-turbine Lancairs.  However, they have established training criteria for single-engine airplanes and every licensed and current pilot with a BFR and a medical meets them.  Not to mention that the insurance cartel is requiring training for the high-end Lancairs already.   I have heard many good comments from the group on both sides.  Let's keep the dialogue going.  It's in our common interest to have safe airplanes flown by safe pilots.   - Rob Wolf