X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:35:35 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.237] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14) with ESMTP id 3742160 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:59:32 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.198.237; envelope-from=fluffysheap@gmail.com Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so428498rvf.7 for ; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:58:57 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=izw+UEHC/GiXiUjeYXDsoP7XVTXStKzU6vqCpAHXuK/ouxU+ds4VFiJZgR+bNnUugY 9GpouPOPgxoj+mGqmaWfXIrMKwATgvg4rCIHI06mhQzp9TnnZyzeKlr71+assPbyG0/a J9avQfl3r0BsfFySfd5qlMxcQ2AdaiVzXotXk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.136.6 with SMTP id j6mr2343532rvd.21.1246496337646; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:58:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 17:58:57 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Diplomacy and Tact From: William Wilson X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd254ea6b55ff046dae8b98 --000e0cd254ea6b55ff046dae8b98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nothing, if there's something illegal going on. If, on the other hand, someone is simply doing things differently from the way you would do them, then "blowing the whistle" is really "being an arrogant jackass." On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:09 PM, wrote: > So what is wrong with blowing the whistle? > > Jeff > > 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. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Olson > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Sent: Tue, Jun 30, 2009 12:12 pm > Subject: [LML] Re: Diplomacy and Tact > > 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 > > .* > > > > -- > For archives and unsub > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html > > ------------------------------ > Dell Laptops: Huge Savings on Popular Laptops - Deals starting at $399 > --000e0cd254ea6b55ff046dae8b98 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nothing, if there's something illegal going on.=A0 If, on the other han= d, someone is simply doing things differently from the way you would do the= m, then "blowing the whistle" is really "being an arrogant j= ackass."

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:09 PM, <vtailjeff@aol.com>= wrote:
So what is wrong with blowing the whistle?

Jeff

Like = I said, short of just blowing the whistle=A0
and alerting everyone I could have, there is not much that=A0
could have had any impact.



-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Olson <T= im@5000feet.com>
To: lml@lancairo= nline.net
Sent: Tue, Jun 30, 2009 12:12 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: Diplomacy and Tact

I don't know that you can actua= lly allow yourself to feel=A0
as responsible as you are, when people do such stupid things.=A0
Myself, I had numerous conversations and comments to the=A0
RV-10 driver that this thread started on. I'm sure people=A0
would accuse me of not doing and saying enough, or being=A0
harsh enough. The only thing more harsh I could have=A0
done was get very very public and involve the feds in=A0
every little thing I could. Perhaps that is what=A0
I should have done. But, what happened to me in this=A0
situation is that the more I confronted him and told him=A0
when he was doing stupid things, the less he would be willing=A0
to talk to me. It's the same ol' stupid things your kids=A0
do....you yell at them about something, and pretty soon=A0
they'll just do it all behind your back and not talk to=A0
you about it. So can we really be feeling that=A0
deeply responsible when these people are purposely avoiding=A0
us and avoiding our conversations because they KNOW that=A0
we are going to be encouraging them towards different=A0
behavior? Like I said, short of just blowing the whistle=A0
and alerting everyone I could have, there is not much that=A0
could have had any impact. And, the whistle blowing=A0
would only become a real option once something ILLEGAL=A0
was going on. Nobody's going to come down on you=A0
and bust your butt when you're not even flying your plane=A0
yet....they have to wait until you actually fly something=A0
that isn't legal. This guy knew when he crossed the lines=A0
of legality, and didn't care. That being the case, I just=A0
don't know that other than continuing to encourage people=A0
to do the right thing, there is much we can do. Certainly=A0
though, if I could re-live this situation again, I'd actually=A0
pull the trigger on a couple more harsh options. But, it's=A0
a self-responsibility issue...something we severely lack=A0
in this country these days. Fortunately, when you see how=A0
blame is assigned after an incident, the FAA still understands=A0
that the pilot is the final authority and sole responsible=A0
party for the safety of his flight.=A0
=A0
Tim=A0
=A0
Smith, Stuart wrote:=A0
> I agree with Rob. I was in contact with an owner who decided he didn&#= 39;t > need transition training, amoung other things, when his legacy wa= s > finished. I politely sat down and discussed various scenarios and &g= t; 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 t= o > do it his way, and if he died in the process.... that's okay. Ho= w can > you respond to that?=A0
> > I learned that an acquaintance was flying with this owner during = test > flights. Again, I had several polite conversations with the passe= nger > 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 du= mb > and dumber scenario, I learned that the passenger had three small &= gt; 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.=A0
> > You can't fix stupid. You need to care, you need to be curiou= s and you > need training to stay healthy in this hobby. Since we don= 9;t have the > homebuilt airplane police, one only needs money to get in= to 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 d= o is > to identify them and try to help limit collatoral damage.=A0
> > -----Original Message-----=A0
> *From:* Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net]*On=A0
> Behalf Of *Chuck Jensen=A0
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:24 AM=A0
> *To:* lml@l= ancaironline.net=A0
> *Subject:* [LML] Re: Diplomacy and Tact=A0
> > Did you inquire if he was using a Technical Advisor or other=A0 > resource? Aand then go around, by way of the back door, to gain=A0
> entry that way? > > I'm not saying you didn't do due dil= igence in this instance, but if=A0
> we have a high degree of certainty that a person's life might be o= n=A0
> the line; or even worse, an unsuspecting buyer may later purchase=A0 > this accident-waiting-to-happen, then 3 attempts to warn someone of=A0=
> a foreseeable, very serious problem does not sound like overkill=A0 > (pun intended). > > I've been stupid, and sometimes I've= been stupid 3 times in a row,=A0
> but I would hope that anyone that saw I was making such a serious=A0 > mistake, would not simply walk away, satisified that they'd 'd= one=A0
> their duty'.=A0
> > Chuck Jensen=A0
> > > > -----Original Message-----=A0
> *From:* Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net]*On=A0
> Behalf Of *rwolf9= 9@aol.com=A0
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:14 AM=A0
> *To:* lml@l= ancaironline.net=A0
> *Subject:* [LML] Diplomacy and Tact=A0
> > As I grow older, I realize that I can say what needs to be said= =A0
> without insulting people. And yes, I can be more blunt with my=A0
> friends. However, a couple of years ago I was being shown a=A0
> Legendary Mustang kit at the local airport, which is=A0
> surprisingly similar in construction technique to our Lancairs. > S= ome construction aspects were done very well and some were=A0
> not. The bad ones that I remember all involved the wing fuel=A0
> tanks. The fuel tank sealer was poorly applied without good=A0
> coverage -- there was exposed fiberglass in many places. But=A0
> worse were the holes in the ribs that were not closed out with=A0
> micro. THERE WOULD BE HONEYCOMB DIRECTLY EXPOSED TO FUEL. I=A0
> told the builder that he needed to close out the holes so as not=A0 > to allow fuel to contact the honeycomb and gradually soak thru=A0
> the entire wing skin. His response was appalling -- he had=A0
> taken the hole that he cut out and stuck it in a jar of avgas to=A0 > see if it would break down over time. It looked okay after six=A0
> months, so he was unconcerned.=A0
> > I told him three times that he needed to close out the holes=A0 > that were to be exposed to fuel. I was polite about it. I told=A0
> him how I o make sure to get good coverage with the fuel tank=A0
> sealer. Did he listen? No. However, I stopped short of=A0
> calling him a f**king idiot with a death wish because it would=A0
> not have made a bit of difference. If he ever finishes his=A0
> plane, he WILL be an accident statistic. Guaranteed.=A0
> > What would you have me do? Talk to the brick wall a little=A0
> longer? Call the "homebuilt airplane police"? I said what=A0=
> needed to be said, three times, and was rebuffed every time. > No, = I walked away and told myself that Darwin still works, but=A0
> in this case it will take a little longer. > > - Rob Wolf=A0
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------= -------=A0
> Save energy, paper and money -- *get the Green Toolbar=A0
> <http://toolbar.aol.com/green/downloa= d.html?ncid=3Demlweusdown00000038>.*=A0
> =A0
--=A0
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/L= ist.html=A0

--000e0cd254ea6b55ff046dae8b98--