I don't know that you can actually allow yourself to feel 
as responsible as you are, when people do such stupid things. 
Myself, I had numerous conversations and comments to the 
RV-10 driver that this thread started on. I'm sure people 
would accuse me of not doing and saying enough, or being 
harsh enough. The only thing more harsh I could have 
done was get very very public and involve the feds in 
every little thing I could. Perhaps that is what 
I should have done. But, what happened to me in this 
situation is that the more I confronted him and told him 
when he was doing stupid things, the less he would be willing 
to talk to me. It's the same ol' stupid things your kids 
do....you yell at them about something, and pretty soon 
they'll just do it all behind your back and not talk to 
you about it. So can we really be feeling that 
deeply responsible when these people are purposely avoiding 
us and avoiding our conversations because they KNOW that 
we are going to be encouraging them towards different 
behavior? Like I said, short of just blowing the whistle 
and alerting everyone I could have, there is not much that 
could have had any impact. And, the whistle blowing 
would only become a real option once something ILLEGAL 
was going on. Nobody's going to come down on you 
and bust your butt when you're not even flying your plane 
yet....they have to wait until you actually fly something 
that isn't legal. This guy knew when he crossed the lines 
of legality, and didn't care. That being the case, I just 
don't know that other than continuing to encourage people 
to do the right thing, there is much we can do. Certainly 
though, if I could re-live this situation again, I'd actually 
pull the trigger on a couple more harsh options. But, it's 
a self-responsibility issue...something we severely lack 
in this country these days. Fortunately, when you see how 
blame is assigned after an incident, the FAA still understands 
that the pilot is the final authority and sole responsible 
party for the safety of his flight. 
 
Tim 
 
Smith, Stuart wrote: 
> 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 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> Save energy, paper and money -- *get the Green Toolbar 
> <http://toolbar.aol.com/green/download.html?ncid=emlweusdown00000038>.* 
>  
-- 
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html