lml@lancaironline.net Mailing List Archive

Jon,

I have sat on the side lines too long on this issue. In my opinion, Valin 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 accidents that 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, we 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 warning systems and secondary latches. If you are concerned about secondary 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 nose 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 aircraft is marginally controllable how are you going to train pilots to deal 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 the program are gone.

We all should thank guys like Valin Thorne and Chris Zavatson for their 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 authority. It suggests a hypothesis based on some anecdotal reports, offers some airflow diagrams without testing and a conclusion. There is no independent engineering data presented. I suggest, how about a nose down condition, might force the canopy closed, I can’t prove it but it seems rational, and that’s the problem here. I have no issues if the authors wish to offer an opinion which I agree mostly with, but do we really need another paper to remind people 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. Builders can do the same. If the authors feels so strongly about presenting this paper, present it to Lancair and get their endorsement.