X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:59:58 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [17.172.108.250] (HELO st11p05mm-asmtp002.mac.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with ESMTP id 6489386 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:07:38 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=17.172.108.250; envelope-from=yak55m@icloud.com Received: from [192.168.1.64] (99-181-53-104.lightspeed.rcsntx.sbcglobal.net [99.181.53.104]) by st11p05mm-asmtp002.mac.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-27.08(7.0.4.27.7) 64bit (built Aug 22 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <0MTO00MMIN3DPP50@st11p05mm-asmtp002.mac.com> for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:06:50 +0000 (GMT) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.10.8794,1.0.431,0.0.0000 definitions=2013-09-25_05:2013-09-25,2013-09-25,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1308280000 definitions=main-1309250053 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Undeliverable mail: Re: [LML] Re: Question on Legacy MG Strut References: From: andres katz Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-FC7B3ABE-8CFF-4BC1-A26B-FA131ED33CCF X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11A465) In-reply-to: X-Original-Message-id: <6FED1E34-8BAF-4565-BF5A-2C8A1C2B9A46@icloud.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 08:06:48 -0500 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit MIME-version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-FC7B3ABE-8CFF-4BC1-A26B-FA131ED33CCF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I second that, in my personal experience since JB departed there has been a m= arked change in attitude from the factory and owner regarding support for th= e lancair community. The support for the evo despite growing teeth is been o= utstanding compared with the prior manager. Keeping an inventory of expensiv= e fuel pumps or inexpensive seals does not pay salaries. This is an experime= ntal outfit and not a certified airplane company like Beechcraft or mooney a= nd look where they are financially, ailing like hell. Sent from my iPad > On Sep 25, 2013, at 7:59 AM, Colyn Case wrote: >=20 > I'm not sure of all the issues here but I can imagine Lancair needing to m= ake tough decisions where to put their resources. In any case, I suspect m= ore money flows into Lancair from the President than flows out. >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Sep 25, 2013, at 7:51 AM, Mike's Gmail wrote: >=20 > The funny thing! I use to be able to buy seal kits from Lancair. Now tha= t 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 goo= d for business. =20 >=20 > A hangar mate across the way got so pissed about this he just sold his ES.= Said if you can work with the company that made your airplane parts I'm se= lling, and he did! >=20 >=20 > Mike Larkin >=20 > 424LL >=20 > Sent from my iPhone >=20 >> On Sep 24, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Paul Miller wrote: >>=20 >> I found your note on the liability waiver and refusal to provide instruct= ions an interesting position by Lancair. I'd like to expand the topic and m= ake 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 fight= ing 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 Componen= t Repair Manuals and instructions needed to accomplish the tasks. >>=20 >> While Lancairs may be different because of the experimental category, the= se 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 c= osts for Lancairs as low as possible. I'd publish and sell a complete set o= f 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 responsibil= ity to maintain it in an airworthy condition. The data to keep it airworthy= is not proprietary and should not be locked away in someone else's cabinet.= That's just wrong. >>=20 >> I could be wrong but I look forward to comments on that position and I su= ggest anyone looking to buy any airplane simply ask where all the instructio= ns for continued airworthiness reside. The answers can be revealing. >>=20 >> Paul >>=20 >>> On 24 September 2013 04:19, Valin & Allyson Thorn wrote: >>> Paul, >>>=20 >>> Normally this work is done by Lancair and that is their strong preferenc= e. We wanted to do it ourselves for its educational value. After some deli= berations, Lancair agreed and required us signing a liability waiver and the= y would provide absolutely no instructions but would sell us the seals. >>>=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-FC7B3ABE-8CFF-4BC1-A26B-FA131ED33CCF Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I second that, in my personal experien= ce since JB departed there has been a marked change in attitude from the fac= tory and owner regarding support for the lancair community. The support for t= he evo despite growing teeth is been outstanding compared with the prior man= ager. Keeping an inventory of expensive fuel pumps or inexpensive seals does= not pay salaries. This is an experimental outfit and not a certified airpla= ne company like Beechcraft or mooney and look where they are financially, ai= ling like hell.

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 25, 2013, at 7= :59 AM, Colyn Case <colyncase@= earthlink.net> wrote:

I'm= not sure of all the issues here but I can imagine Lancair needing to make t= ough decisions where to put their resources.   In any case, I suspect m= ore money flows into Lancair from the President than flows out.



On Sep 25, 2013, at 7:51 AM, Mike's Gmai= l wrote:

The funny thing!  I use 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 int= erest.  Not very good for business.  

A h= angar mate across the way got so pissed about this he just sold his ES. &nbs= p;Said if you can work with the company that made your airplane parts I'm se= lling, and he did!


Mike Larkin
=

424LL

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 24= , 2013, at 2:30 PM, Paul Miller <p= jdmiller@gmail.com> wrote:

I found your note on the liability w= aiver and refusal to provide instructions an interesting position by Lancair= .  I'd like to expand the topic and make a few comments about owners be= ing able to maintain their aircraft in an airworthy condition.  I have p= ersonal 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 th= is work is done by Lancair and that is their strong preference.  W= e wanted to do it ourselves for its educational value.  After some= deliberations, Lancair agreed and required us signing a liability waiver an= d they would provide absolutely no instructions but would sell us the seals.=


= --Apple-Mail-FC7B3ABE-8CFF-4BC1-A26B-FA131ED33CCF--