Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:43:17 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-732680@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.35.72.5; envelope-from=lancair@ustek.com
From: N301ES <lancair@ustek.com>
Reply-To:  lancair@ustek.com
Organization: Lancair ES-P (xl) Builder
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: approved inspectors/pilots
References: <list-732337@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-732337@logan.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------030301040004020400090301"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------030301040004020400090301
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Marvin Kaye wrote:

> Posted for morss <morss@pacbell.net>:
> I think lancair just wants the safest planes possible.
>  dave

I agree, planes that fall apart don't do any of us any good.  While 
building at the Lancair factory I saw a IV-P that a guy had purchased 
half built.  He brought it in for the Wizards of Redmond to check and 
refurb.  The least of the problems were the Dixie cups found sealed in 
the wing.  Poor bonding throughout.  I expect that it took them months 
to un-do the substandard work.  But if inspection is a good idea, then 
at what stages, with what frequency, at what cost?  Perhaps in 
conjunction with the EAA technical advisors?  They are readily 
available, and cheap (mine was a Chapter  member and free).


Robert M. Simon,  ES-P N301ES


--------------030301040004020400090301
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8;
 name="lancair.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="lancair.vcf"

begin:vcard
fn:Robert M. Simon
n:Simon;Robert M.
org:Lancair ES-P N301ES
adr:;;;Columbus;OH;;U.S.A.
email;internet:lancair@ustek.com
version:2.1
end:vcard


--------------030301040004020400090301--