Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 12:35:56 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-1944427@logan.com>
From: RWolf99@aol.com
Subject: Product Liability and Kitplanes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Larry -

While I generally agree with the sentiments you mentioned, I think you've 
taken it a little too far.  In the case of the hydraulic spool valve 
installed backwards, unless this mistake caused an airplane to land gear up I 
don't see a problem with providing instructions to the customer saying 
"Here's a problem -- here's how to fix it" and leaving the financial and 
manhour burden to the customer.  I have received several service bulletins 
from Lancair over the years and have complied with most of them.  

(Funny, I haven't heard anything from Lancair about spool valves.  If this 
were a real safety-of-flight issue I expect they'd have sent a service 
bulletin out.  They should anyway.)

Brent Regan said it well with his usual eloquence a few years ago -- 
something like "We are selling you a bunch of parts and two books of 
guidelines which, combined with a little ingenuity, can be assembled into a 
really cool airplane".  The Lancair kit is definitely not a hobby store model 
where Tab A always fits into Slot B.  Anyone who thinks any kitplane is that 
easy has either been deceived or, more likely, just isn't listening.

Having said all that, I think there should be financial recourse for 
deficiencies that either are unsafe or just plain won't work.  While I may 
grouse at having to grind and sand and tweak to get parts to fit, I'm also 
glad that I only spent $27K for my kit rather than $100K for a kit with 
perfect parts.  But for parts that are just plain bad, Lancair should correct 
this at their expense.  And they have.  The quick-build windows/doors on the 
pressurized airplanes are one example.  There was a problem with the parts 
that were delivered and Lancair made it right, as they should have.  I also 
have had parts missing from my kit, or wrong parts delivered, which I didn't 
discover for five years (!) and they sent me the missing items for free.  
(Flap limit switches)

To summarize, the cost of correcting deficiencies should not be 100% on the 
customer, which is what I interpret your position to be.  For parts that are 
unserviceable or unsafe, the supplier should be held accountable.  For parts 
that need rework, they should let us know how to accomplish the rework.  (It 
would be nice if they told us BEFORE we beat our heads against the wall for a 
weekend, but life's like that.)  And I think this is what they do.

Lancair's customer support is outstanding.  Sure, it could be better, but 
overall I'm satisfied.

So, Larry, in general I agree with you but I contend that there are some 
cases in which the financial burden for correcting a kit problem should 
remain with the supplier, rather than being passed on to the customer.  
Either way, I'm very glad they tell me how to fix it whenever I ask...

- Rob Wolf
LNC2 MkII SFB  51%