Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 13:32:19 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-6869328@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=63.230.26.162; envelope-from=kevin@arilabs.net
From: Kevin Stallard <kevin@arilabs.net>
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Legacy White Paper
Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Legacy White Paper
Thread-Index: Ac9t1vFgdkbP7gLbR0m9OKxHmIHtRQAI/myL
References: <list-6868625@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-6868625@logan.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Hi Jeff,

I think we're talking about two different data sets. =20

1.  Accident Statistical Data (non-anecdotal and indisputable )
2.  Performance of the airplane when the canopy is open (very anecdotal, no=
 test data available).

The point is that the premise of the paper is that the airplane defective a=
nd our only chance of reducing accidents is warning lights and a secondary =
latch system.

Our augment is that:

1.  This type of premise doesn't do our community any good and damages the =
reputation of the airplane prematurely.
2.  The performance data to show what the airplane will do when the canopy =
is open is very obtainable and obtainable in a safe manner
3.  The report not complete and is inconclusive without this performance da=
ta.
4.  If these crashes are indeed pilot error (in that they failed to fly the=
 airplane when the canopy popped), we need to know.

I don't mean to disrespect those that are no longer with us, but we owe it =
to the airplane and all those who have invested so much into them to know t=
he real cause.  A statistical analysis of accident data is insufficient in =
finding the root cause, and damaging the reputation of someone or something=
 with insufficient information is not right.  Just because getting that inf=
ormation may seem hard is not an excuse for ignoring it.=20

That's what we're trying to say.

Thanks
Kevin


________________________________________
From: Lancair Mailing List [lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of vtailjeff@a=
ol.com [vtailjeff@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 5:40 AM
To: Lancair Mailing List
Subject: [LML] Re: Legacy White Paper

Jon,

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.

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.

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.

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 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=92t prove it but it seems rational, and that=92s the problem he=
re. 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 in=
corporates a warning sensor into their avionics installs. Builders can do t=
he same. If the authors feels so strongly about presenting this paper, pres=
ent it to Lancair and  get their endorsement.=