X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:51:25 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-qe0-f48.google.com ([209.85.128.48] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with ESMTPS id 6488797 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 19:42:36 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.128.48; envelope-from=legacyl2k@gmail.com Received: by mail-qe0-f48.google.com with SMTP id nd7so3654490qeb.7 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:42:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.126.6 with SMTP id a6mr33511498qas.15.1380066122005; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:42:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [172.19.0.4] (173-166-16-81-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.166.16.81]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id w20sm18086706qax.11.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:42:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Undeliverable mail: Re: [LML] Re: Question on Legacy MG Strut References: From: Mike's Gmail Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-FC731A29-326D-4669-90C0-4EAF55E2CAB7 X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9B206) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-Id: <3A144CA8-3588-464A-9146-95F84333BC90@gmail.com> X-Original-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 19:42:00 -0400 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-FC731A29-326D-4669-90C0-4EAF55E2CAB7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The funny thing! I use to be able to buy seal kits from Lancair. Now that t= he President of Lancair owns the landing gear company, you no longer can. I= n my world we call that a monopoly or conflict of interest. Not very good f= or business. =20 A hangar mate across the way got so pissed about this he just sold his ES. S= aid if you can work with the company that made your airplane parts I'm selli= ng, and he did! Mike Larkin 424LL Sent from my iPhone On Sep 24, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Paul Miller wrote: > I found your note on the liability waiver and refusal to provide instructi= ons an interesting position by Lancair. I'd like to expand the topic and ma= ke a few comments about owners being able to maintain their aircraft in an a= irworthy condition. I have personal and group involvement in this matter wi= th certified aircraft. >=20 > For decades the alphabet groups and FAA and manufacturers have been fighti= ng over the FARs that requires type certificated US aircraft manufacturers t= o make available airworthiness instructions to the "owner" so that the aircr= aft can be maintained in an airworthy condition at all times. This means in= structions, parts availability, CRMs and more. Many manufacturers have gone= to extremes to satisfy that requirement. >=20 > Some firms like Airbus do not want to disclose proprietary data and have p= urposely not adhered to the FARs in this respect and forced owners to overha= ul or replace parts at great expense. Those battles continue. Conversely,= companies like Beech and Cessna have long made the parts and data available= and Cessna will even cross-reference Cessna part numbers for original part n= umbers so you can go source the original or generic part needed (o-rings, m= otors, brushes etc). King Air landing gear (for example) is arguably more c= omplex than an ESCO strut but the Beech gear can: >=20 > a) be exchanged at Beech or > b) sent to any shop of your choice qualified in that category or > c) repaired and overhauled in your own hangar. >=20 > That's because Beech makes available to owners and shops all the Component= Repair Manuals and instructions needed to accomplish the tasks. >=20 > While Lancairs may be different because of the experimental category, thes= e aircraft must still be maintained in an airworthy condition. Therefore, I= would argue that Lancair should make the data available to any owner or sho= p so that Lancairs can be maintained in an airworthy condition whether it be= repairs, overhauls, inspections or whatever is needed to ensure airworthine= ss. Those procedures and the parts necessary to maintain them are part of w= hat makes the Lancair an airplane--not just the original kit. >=20 > If I were running the ship, I'd do whatever I can to make the operating co= sts for Lancairs as low as possible. I'd publish and sell a complete set of= manuals for overhaul and repair instructions (as TCM does for the engine) p= lus I'd offer to perform the work in-house as well (if that makes sense). T= hat makes for a very happy owner group and keeps costs under control and all= ows everyone in the world to maintain an airworthy airplane. >=20 > It is the owner's airplane, the owner's strut and the owner's responsibili= ty to maintain it in an airworthy condition. The data to keep it airworthy i= s not proprietary and should not be locked away in someone else's cabinet. T= hat's just wrong. >=20 > I could be wrong but I look forward to comments on that position and I sug= gest anyone looking to buy any airplane simply ask where all the instruction= s for continued airworthiness reside. The answers can be revealing. >=20 > Paul >=20 > On 24 September 2013 04:19, Valin & Allyson Thorn w= rote: > Paul, >=20 > Normally this work is done by Lancair and that is their strong preference.= We wanted to do it ourselves for its educational value. After some delibe= rations, Lancair agreed and required us signing a liability waiver and they w= ould provide absolutely no instructions but would sell us the seals. --Apple-Mail-FC731A29-326D-4669-90C0-4EAF55E2CAB7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
The funny thing!  I u= se to be able to buy seal kits from Lancair.  Now that the President of= Lancair owns the landing gear company, you no longer can.  In my world= we call that a monopoly or conflict of interest.  Not very good for bu= siness.  

A hangar mate across the way got so p= issed about this he just sold his ES.  Said if you can work with the co= mpany that made your airplane parts I'm selling, and he did!

<= /div>

Mike Larkin

424LL

S= ent from my iPhone

On Sep 24, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Paul Miller &l= t;pjdmiller@gmail.com> wrote:<= br>
I found your note on the liability waiver and refusal to provide inst= ructions an interesting position by Lancair.  I'd like to expand the to= pic and make a few comments about owners being able to maintain their aircra= ft in an airworthy condition.  I have personal and group involvement in= this matter with certified aircraft.

For dec= ades the alphabet groups and FAA and manufacturers have been fighting over t= he FARs that requires type certificated US aircraft manufacturers to make av= ailable airworthiness instructions to the "owner" so that the aircraft can b= e maintained in an airworthy condition at all times.  This means instru= ctions, parts availability, CRMs and more.  Many manufacturers have gon= e to extremes to satisfy that requirement.

Some firms like Airbus do not want to disclose proprietary da= ta and have purposely not adhered to the FARs in this respect and forced own= ers to overhaul or replace parts at great expense.  Those battles conti= nue.   Conversely, companies like Beech and Cessna have long made the p= arts and data available and Cessna will even cross-reference Cessna part num= bers for original part numbers so you can go source the original or generic p= art needed  (o-rings, motors, brushes etc).  King Air landing gear=  (for example) is arguably more complex than an ESCO strut but the= Beech gear can:

 a) be exchanged at Beech or
 b) sen= t to any shop of your choice qualified in that category or
 c= ) repaired and overhauled in your own hangar.

That'= s because Beech makes available to owners and shops all the Component Repair= Manuals and instructions needed to accomplish the tasks.

While Lancairs may be different because of the experimen= tal category, these aircraft must still be maintained in an airworthy condit= ion.  Therefore, I would argue that Lancair should make the data availa= ble to any owner or shop so that Lancairs can be maintained in an airworthy c= ondition whether it be repairs, overhauls, inspections or whatever is needed= to ensure airworthiness.  Those procedures and the parts necessary to m= aintain them are part of what makes the Lancair an airplane--not just the or= iginal kit.

If I were running the ship, I'd do whatever I can to mak= e the operating costs for Lancairs as low as possible.  I'd publish and= sell a complete set of manuals for overhaul and repair instructions (as TCM= does for the engine) plus I'd offer to perform the work in-house as well (i= f that makes sense).  That makes for a very happy owner group and keeps= costs under control and allows everyone in the world to maintain an airwort= hy airplane.

It is the owner's airplane, t= he owner's strut and the owner's responsibility to maintain it in an airwort= hy condition.  The data to keep it airworthy is not proprietary and sho= uld not be locked away in someone else's cabinet.  That's just wrong.

I could be w= rong but I look forward to comments on that position and I suggest anyone lo= oking to buy any airplane simply ask where all the instructions for continue= d airworthiness reside.   The answers can be revealing.

Paul

=
On 24 September 2013 04:19, Valin & Allyson T= horn <thorn@starflight.aero> wrote:

Paul,

Normally this work is done by Lancair and that= is their strong preference.  We wanted to do it ourselves for its= educational value.  After some deliberations, Lancair agreed and r= equired us signing a liability waiver and they would provide absolutely no i= nstructions but would sell us the seals.

= --Apple-Mail-FC731A29-326D-4669-90C0-4EAF55E2CAB7--