X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 07:40:13 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from omr-d01.mx.aol.com ([205.188.252.208] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTPS id 6866202 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 09 May 2014 16:30:32 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.252.208; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-mcb01.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mcb01.mx.aol.com [172.26.50.175]) by omr-d01.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 73171700567FC for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 16:29:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from core-mnb004b.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mnb004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.106.141]) by mtaomg-mcb01.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id EB4B538000086 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 16:29:57 -0400 (EDT) References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Legacy White Paper In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8D139DC942A9DC4_8F4_52502_webmailstg-va03.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail STANDARD Received: from 12.110.229.82 by webmailstg-va03.sysops.aol.com (205.188.21.140) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Fri, 09 May 2014 16:29:57 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <8D139DC941EB6DF-8F4-1A2DB@webmailstg-va03.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [12.110.229.82] X-Original-Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 16:29:57 -0400 (EDT) x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1a32af536d3ac52979 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8D139DC942A9DC4_8F4_52502_webmailstg-va03.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Jon, =20 I have sat on the side lines too long on this issue. In my opinion, Valin h= as done an outstanding job of presenting his research. His work is not base= d on anecdotal data. There are a half dozen serious and fatal accidents tha= t he detailed in his report. Have you taken the time to read these reports?= Why do you believe that this could never happen to you? As a community, w= e cannot ignore this problem. It will not go away. We must do everything to= notify new Legacy pilots to this hazard, encourage the installation of war= ning systems and secondary latches. If you are concerned about secondary la= tches--don't be the IVP has a secondary latch on its door.=20 If you think testing is necessary volunteer your Legacy for the test. Put y= our money where your mouth is. This is high risk testing. As to your nose d= own proposition -- test that at 100 feet AGL and 150 knots and tell me how = long you can sustain that. Even if the testing demonstrates that the aircra= ft is marginally controllable how are you going to train pilots to deal wit= h an open canopy on takeoff? Open the canopy on takeoff? Why do you believe we need Lancair's endorsement? What purpose will it serv= e? Who is going to endorse it? All of the engineers associated with the pro= gram are gone.=20 We all should thank guys like Valin Thorne and Chris Zavatson for their con= tributions to Lancair safety. If you are not part of the solution you are p= art of the problem.=20 Jeff Edwards =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Jon Socolof To: Lancair Mailing List Sent: Fri, May 9, 2014 6:51 am Subject: [LML] Legacy White Paper The paper in questions has a number of signatures and is presented in a way= (maybe not intended) that implies it has some authority. It suggests a hyp= othesis based on some anecdotal reports, offers some airflow diagrams witho= ut testing and a conclusion. There is no independent engineering data prese= nted. I suggest, how about a nose down condition, might force the canopy cl= osed, I can=E2=80=99t prove it but it seems rational, and that=E2=80=99s th= e problem here. I have no issues if the authors wish to offer an opinion wh= ich I agree mostly with, but do we really need another paper to remind peop= le to latch the canopy or any number of other things? I believe Lancair is = as concerned about safety as anyone. The latch mechanism as designed works= , Lancair incorporates a warning sensor into their avionics installs. Build= ers can do the same. If the authors feels so strongly about presenting this= paper, present it to Lancair and get their endorsement. ----------MB_8D139DC942A9DC4_8F4_52502_webmailstg-va03.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Jon,
 
I have sat on the side lines too long on this issue. In my opinion, Va= lin has done an outstanding job of presenting his research. His work is not= based on anecdotal data. There are a half dozen serious and fatal accident= s that he detailed in his report. Have you taken the time to read these rep= orts? Why do you believe that this could never happen to you?  As a co= mmunity, we cannot ignore this problem. It will not go away. We must do eve= rything to notify new Legacy pilots to this hazard, encourage the installat= ion of warning systems and secondary latches. If you are concerned about se= condary latches--don't be the IVP has a secondary latch on its door.
 
If you think testing is necessary volunteer your Legacy for the test. = Put your money where your mouth is. This is high risk testing. As to your n= ose down proposition -- test that at 100 feet AGL and 150 knots and tell me= how long you can sustain that. Even if the testing demonstrates that the a= ircraft is marginally controllable how are you going to train pilots to dea= l with an open canopy on takeoff? Open the canopy on takeoff?
 
Why do you believe we need Lancair's endorsement? What purpose will it= serve? Who is going to endorse it? All of the engineers associated with th= e program are gone.
 
We all should thank guys like Valin Thorne and Chris Zavatson for thei= r contributions to Lancair safety. If you are not part of the solution you = are part of the problem.
 
Jeff Edwards
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Socolof <jsocolof@ershire.com>
To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Fri, May 9, 2014 6:51 am
Subject: [LML] Legacy White Paper

The paper in questions has a number of signatures = and is presented in a way (maybe not intended) that implies it has some aut= hority. It suggests a hypothesis based on some anecdotal reports, offers so= me airflow diagrams without testing and a conclusion. There is no independe= nt engineering data presented. I suggest, how about a nose down condition, = might force the canopy closed, I can=E2=80=99t prove it but it seems ration= al, and that=E2=80=99s the problem here. I have no issues if the authors wi= sh to offer an opinion which I agree mostly with, but do we really need ano= ther paper to remind people to latch the canopy or any number of other thin= gs? I believe Lancair is as concerned about safety as anyone.  The lat= ch mechanism as designed works, Lancair incorporates a warning sensor into = their avionics installs. Builders can do the same. If the authors feels so = strongly about presenting this paper, present it to Lancair and  get t= heir endorsement.
 ----------MB_8D139DC942A9DC4_8F4_52502_webmailstg-va03.sysops.aol.com--