Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:43:34 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-3755642@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.217.101; envelope-from=n427jb@bellsouth.net
From: n427jb@bellsouth.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_28395_1247492142_0"


--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_28395_1247492142_0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The incident Bill Edwards describes lacks certain information that I believ=
e would be important for those interested in "the rest of the story."  Mr. =
Edwards aircraft did not order the inspection, thus, Mr. Edwards was not fi=
nancially responsible for the inspection.  That means that he is not entitl=
ed to a copy of the inspection report.  Lancair requires that the aircraft =
being inspected be located at a facility that maintains jacks sufficient to=
 lift the aircraft for landing gear operation and inspection as well as oth=
er tools and materials that cannot be transported easily or economically to=
 the inspection site.  The jacks and other equipment were available, and th=
e aircraft was lifter using that equipment.  Mr. Edwards had a different st=
yle engine lifting point/pin and it is was this pin that failed during the =
retract proceedure.  The shifting weight of the aircraft was a major factor=
 in the jack coming out of the non-standard jack points.  Irrespective of w=
ho purchased the inspection, or how the jack came out of the jack point, it=
 is a fact that the jack came out of the jack point and, thankfully, produc=
ed only minor damage.  Since the damage was to be repaired, our inspector l=
eft the interior panels uninstalled.  When I heard of this incident, I advi=
sed that Lancair would send the inspector back to install the panels upon t=
he repairs being made.  I even told the new owner that should he get the ai=
rcraft to Redmond, we would make the repairs there at no cost to him.

A lot has been said on the LML about nose struts.  I believe one lister got=
 it right when he said that ESCO was still in business.  They are, however,=
 they are no longer in the business of making nose struts.  These struts ca=
nnot easily be overhauled in the field.  There are many changes that were m=
ade to the strut over the years that they have been in service.  Some inclu=
de an increased shaft wall thickness, self centering and improved shimmy da=
mpning.  Shimmy is not exclusively a condition caused by the nose strut.  M=
any of you have correctly identified the other areas that must be examined =
before coming to the conclusion that the shimmy is caused by the condition =
of the strut.  Tire pressure and tire balance are at the top of the list of=
 those things you must check.  If the shimmy has continued for a extended p=
eriod of time, you must check the condition of the engine mount.  If the en=
gine mount is damaged, you can be sure that it is contributing to the shimm=
y.....but it is not necessarily the underlying cause of the shimmy.  Yes, a=
s Mr. Edwards has stated, I do have a small shimmy that exhibits itself on =
rollout.  I have the older ESCO strut.  My strut does need to be occasional=
ly serviced with Nitrogen as they all do.  And yes, my strut has been overh=
auled to include the newer parts available through Lancair.

Keep in mind that Lancair did not willingly go into this insurance inspecti=
on business.  It was a requirement to maintain insurance for its customers.=
  Insurance is a necessary evil.  If you want it you have to do comply with=
 the requirements established by AIG Insurance.  I don't like it but there =
it is!  Keep training, fly safely, and maybe our rates and these requiremen=
ts will be lowered.

Joe=20=20
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_28395_1247492142_0
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_28395_1247492142_1"


--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_28395_1247492142_1
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
<!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<head></head>
<body>
<!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
<DIV>The incident Bill Edwards describes lacks certain information that I b=
elieve would be important for those interested in "the rest of the story."&=
nbsp; Mr. Edwards aircraft did not order the inspection, thus, Mr. Edwards =
was not financially responsible for the inspection.&nbsp; That means that h=
e is not entitled to a copy of the inspection report.&nbsp; Lancair require=
s that the aircraft being inspected be located at a facility that maintains=
 jacks sufficient to lift the aircraft for landing gear operation and inspe=
ction as well as other tools and materials that cannot be transported easil=
y or economically to the inspection site.&nbsp; The jacks and other equipme=
nt were available, and the aircraft was lifter using that equipment.&nbsp; =
Mr. Edwards had a different style engine lifting point/pin and it is was th=
is pin that failed during the retract proceedure.&nbsp; The shifting weight=
 of the aircraft was a major factor in the jack coming out of the non-stand=
ard jack points.&nbsp; Irrespective of who purchased the inspection, or how=
 the jack came out of the jack point, it is a fact that the jack came out o=
f the jack point and, thankfully, produced only minor damage.&nbsp; Since t=
he damage was to be repaired, our inspector left the interior panels uninst=
alled.&nbsp; When I heard of this incident, I advised that Lancair would se=
nd the inspector back to install the panels upon the repairs being made.&nb=
sp; I even told the new owner that should he get the aircraft to Redmond, w=
e would make the repairs there at no cost to him.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>A lot has been said on the LML about nose struts.&nbsp; I believe one =
lister got it right when he said that ESCO was still in business.&nbsp; The=
y are, however, they are no longer in the business of making nose struts.&n=
bsp; These struts cannot easily be overhauled in the field.&nbsp; There are=
 many changes that were made to the strut over the years that they have bee=
n in service.&nbsp; Some include an increased shaft wall thickness, self ce=
ntering and improved shimmy dampning.&nbsp; Shimmy is not exclusively a con=
dition caused by the nose strut.&nbsp; Many of you have correctly identifie=
d the other areas that must be examined before coming to the conclusion tha=
t the shimmy is caused by the condition of the strut.&nbsp; Tire pressure a=
nd tire balance are at the top of the list of those things you must check.&=
nbsp; If the shimmy has continued for a extended period of time, you must c=
heck the condition of the engine mount.&nbsp; If the engine mount is damage=
d, you can be sure that it is contributing to the shimmy.....but it is not =
necessarily the underlying cause of the shimmy.&nbsp; Yes, as Mr. Edwards h=
as stated, I do have a small shimmy that exhibits itself on rollout.&nbsp; =
I have the older ESCO strut.&nbsp; My strut does need to be occasionally se=
rviced with Nitrogen as they all do.&nbsp; And yes, my strut has been overh=
auled to include the newer parts available through Lancair.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Keep in mind that Lancair did not willingly go into this insurance ins=
pection business.&nbsp; It was a requirement to maintain insurance for its =
customers.&nbsp;&nbsp;Insurance is a necessary evil.&nbsp; If you want it y=
ou have to do comply with the requirements established by AIG&nbsp;Insuranc=
e.&nbsp; I don't like&nbsp;it but&nbsp;there it is!&nbsp; Keep training, fl=
y safely, and&nbsp;maybe our rates and these requirements will be lowered.<=
/DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Joe&nbsp; </DIV>
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->

</body>
</html>

--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_28395_1247492142_1--

--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_28395_1247492142_0--