|
|
You can fix stupid. It is just not easy or pretty.
The Insurance Industry has demonstrated how they can select a
specific group and make it financially painful to continue a pattern.
Many and I would say most pilots I deal with do not understand the difference
of minimal transition training to qualify for purchase of insurance and the
Proficiency Training which is more effective at proper behavior
modifications. The many Experimental owners need to tactfully suggest the
industry focus their premium rates and savings on those who don't and those who
- Do.
This is a great time to think again about the great work of LOBO
and Jeff.
John Cox
From: Lancair Mailing List
[mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Smith, Stuart
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:00 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Diplomacy and Tact
I agree with Rob. I was in
contact with an owner who decided he didn't need transition training, amoung
other things, when his legacy was finished. I politely sat down and
discussed various scenarios and outcomes with him three times, but he finished
the last conversation by saying he was an old man, this is what he wanted to
do, he was going to do it his way, and if he died in the process.... that's
okay. How can you respond to that?
I learned that an acquaintance was
flying with this owner during test flights. Again, I had several polite
conversations with the passenger pointing out the dangers of his decisions, and
I was assured that everything would be okay. After they both perished at
the end of a dumb and dumber scenario, I learned that the passenger had three
small children at home. I feel that if I had come unglued and started
yelling at this gentleman, maybe he would still be a father to his
children. I should not have been polite and I should have been more than
gently persuasive.
You can't fix stupid. You
need to care, you need to be curious and you need training to stay healthy
in this hobby. Since we don't have the homebuilt airplane police, one
only needs money to get into these fabulous airplanes. The large majority
of homebuilders I know are concerned and safety oriented, but it only takes a
few ding dongs who insist on rejecting reality to
continually demonstrate Darwin's theory. You can pick them out of a
crowd. I think the best we can do is to identify them and try to
help limit collatoral damage.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net]On Behalf Of
Chuck Jensen
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:24 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Diplomacy and Tact
Did you inquire if he was using a
Technical Advisor or other resource? Aand then go around, by way of the
back door, to gain entry that way?
I'm not saying you didn't
do due diligence in this instance, but if we have a high degree of
certainty that a person's life might be on the line; or even worse, an
unsuspecting buyer may later purchase this accident-waiting-to-happen, then 3
attempts to warn someone of a foreseeable, very serious problem does not sound
like overkill (pun intended).
I've been stupid, and sometimes
I've been stupid 3 times in a row, but I would hope that anyone that saw I was
making such a serious mistake, would not simply walk away, satisified
that they'd 'done their duty'.
Chuck Jensen
-----Original
Message-----
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net]On Behalf Of
rwolf99@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:14 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Diplomacy and Tact
As I grow older, I realize that I
can say what needs to be said without insulting people. And yes, I can be
more blunt with my friends. However, a couple of years ago I was being
shown a Legendary Mustang kit at the local airport, which is surprisingly
similar in construction technique to our Lancairs. Some construction
aspects were done very well and some were not. The bad ones that I
remember all involved the wing fuel tanks. The fuel tank sealer was
poorly applied without good coverage -- there was exposed fiberglass in many
places. But worse were the holes in the ribs that were not closed out
with micro. THERE WOULD BE HONEYCOMB DIRECTLY EXPOSED TO FUEL. I
told the builder that he needed to close out the holes so as not to allow fuel
to contact the honeycomb and gradually soak thru the entire wing skin.
His response was appalling -- he had taken the hole that he cut out and stuck
it in a jar of avgas to see if it would break down over time. It looked
okay after six months, so he was unconcerned.
I told him three times that he needed to close out the holes that were to be
exposed to fuel. I was polite about it. I told him how I o
make sure to get good coverage with the fuel tank sealer. Did he
listen? No. However, I stopped short of calling him a f**king idiot
with a death wish because it would not have made a bit of difference. If
he ever finishes his plane, he WILL be an accident statistic. Guaranteed.
What would you have me do? Talk to the brick wall a little longer?
Call the "homebuilt airplane police"? I said what needed to be
said, three times, and was rebuffed every time. No, I walked away and
told myself that Darwin still works, but in this case it will take a little
longer.
- Rob Wolf
|
|