X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:27:41 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [66.83.119.58] (HELO lucky.dts.local) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.3) with ESMTP id 1336965 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 18 Aug 2006 08:49:52 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.83.119.58; envelope-from=cjensen@dts9000.com Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Respect of the owner X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 X-Original-Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 08:50:33 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <8984A39879F2F5418251CBEEC9C689B31DA442@lucky.dts.local> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Respect of the owner Thread-Index: AcbCqCIq4kMGZ1ENT5eBJfjn3rqTVQAGvCew From: "Chuck Jensen" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" I'm a regular reader of LML, but a canard driver. A number of months ago, after one of the incidents in CA or somewhere, I posted that I had seriously considered a Lancair (buying, not building) but wasn't able to get over the impression (which means its based on anecdotal information, not facts), that the Lancairs weren't as stabile, when low-n-slow, that my meager piloting skills required. The posting wasn't a rant but I did note from time to time, there seemed to be a rash of incidents that concerned me. A day or two later, Joe B. called me and quizzed me about a local incident that I'd referenced in the posting (that was not published or well-known in LML circles). He was curious about the background, pilot history, et al, but in a non-aggressive, non-adversarial manner. Through the lengthy conversation, Joe B. was always very calm, level headed and in no way confrontational and was interested in the impressions of non-Lancair pilots and why those impressions existed. He gave me some background and explained in a non-pushy way, that the company was hopeful that better operator and transition training, which they were encouraging, would help mitigate the situation. Admitting I had never ridden in a Lancair, though I've admired them from afar, he even volunteered to check if there were any Lancair owners in my area and he would arrange a flight for me. I declined, not because of any concern, but from the knowledge that such an offer required massive efforts to arrange. My first and last impression is that Joe B. seems to be a thoughtful, well spoken and level headed person and that Lancair is very lucky to have such a person at its head. To be sure, not all aviation businesses are so fortunate. Whether being a decent person who seems genuinely interested and concerned about what the aviation crowd thinks of his product may not ensure success, but it's a good start. Lancair people should consider themselves fortunate---you could do worse, much worse. Chuck Jensen Do Not Archive=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On=20 > Behalf Of Marvin Kaye > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 5:23 AM > To: Lancair Mailing List > Subject: [LML] Re: Respect of the owner >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Posted for "Lancair" : >=20 > We have all heard the adage that the most assured way to=20 > end up with a small fortune in aviation is to start with a=20 > large one. As much as I enjoy second guessing Joe B. there=20 > is no way in hell that I would change places with him. > I spent years in cutting edge technology where no lives=20 > were at stake. In this idiot litigious country a builder=20 > could ignore the building manual and violate every FAA=20 > regulation and still sue the ass off the kit supplier. Why=20 > would anyone take on that challenge and risk? How could=20 > anyone? The first requirement is an incredible belief in the=20 > product and the second is an equally incredible ego. They go=20 > together. > =20 > I am building an incomparable aircraft with no peer in the=20 > market and I have had great support from Lancair corporate=20 > and their associates. At this point I will do what I can to=20 > give support and exposure to the Lancair employees and their=20 > products. They deserve to succeed, and when they do we all=20 > will succeed as well. If that means that I must be willing=20 > to gloss over and minimize past miscommunications then so be=20 > it. And for my fellow builders who cannot "give it a rest",=20 > just grow up and move on. And if you move on without=20 > completing your kit, then eat my dust. > =20 > Robert M. Simon, > ES-P N301ES > =20 > =20 >=20 > -- > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/ >=20