X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:56:57 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp103.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.200.238] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14) with SMTP id 3756320 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:39:49 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.142.200.238; envelope-from=wpedwards@hilgardhouse.com Received: (qmail 91305 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2009 23:39:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO your4dacd0ea75) (wpedwards@76.166.202.170 with login) by smtp103.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Jul 2009 23:39:11 -0000 X-Yahoo-SMTP: kniD.fKswBBF8QeradIzKYnHAI1VC8wy27IMWeNusi_zdSrRCVE1 X-YMail-OSG: X0fko54VM1l8HhXinV3YPA65OSknByy8c8YhlxI0crAsfR3_gt.43PefTC3hqPNFmXZtLHji1oK0HembUACX58rlyq8pabDbCLIc.SHgmjWhMvAz5oHGwN4DtnYaRrZlqxhHdlgiaCDHgj4bcP.eb0ubOfICvs.QMHU.DlpoH3RAjGhOTRaXUEX2qmzMsOY0j8ceWJJFPDZ2s9rPOTeAeVPIv9dW3Ntg6arDoImtugUpWeTiy4ZyUyEc18ZI8HsRDZovBNcRFuS4JJ5AIrENu2kC49y2gyBf19EQvp5azmY_cxu.k0PiNMhskdBpGXeSWKcsLv4NvDcvh_siGK9DPBLYK4z3G0zz X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: "Bill Edwards" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] X-Original-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:39:02 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <00de01ca0413$1b9f87d0$52de9770$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00DF_01CA03D8.6F40AFD0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcoD0K+9qGAz5fxpR6SNon4PDKbtRgAPq3Ww Content-Language: en-us X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 090713-0, 07/13/2009), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00DF_01CA03D8.6F40AFD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I did not ask for a copy of the report, nor do I believe I am entitled = to one. The Buyer, who is, told me that he could not get one. =20 It was my opinion sitting in the cockpit riding the plane down, and the = FBO mechanic observing, that the lifting point pin was the last point to = fail after the starboard wing tip hit the hanger floor, and the jack = shafts went through the wing and rear cockpit floor. Both mains were = on the hanger floor when the nose wheel came down. If the Lancair = inspector believed that the FBO lifting point pin and the jack points = were unsafe, he had a duty to reject them. The damage to the wing on = the exterior and to the rear foot well had nothing to do with the = interior panels, the pressurization cover, the seats, or the engine = cowling. In fact, the FBO mechanic installed them all and the plane = flew to Phoenix unpressurized with speed tape over the holes, to be = repaired at Phoenix Composites. I can only imagine what the Buyer = thought of the generous offer of repair if only he would fly the plane = to Redmond. The time, hotel costs, commercial fare back to Phoenix = and then up again to pick it up, and fuel costs would be more than the = cost of repairs in Phoenix. =20 But of course, Mr. Bartels knows all of that. =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = n427jb@bellsouth.net Sent: 07/13/2009 8:44 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML]=20 =20 The incident Bill Edwards describes lacks certain information that I = believe 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 financially responsible for the inspection. That means = that he is not entitled 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 other tools and materials that = cannot be transported easily or economically to the inspection site. = The jacks and other equipment were available, and the aircraft was = lifter using that equipment. Mr. Edwards had a different style 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 = who 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, produced only minor damage. Since the damage was to be = repaired, our inspector left the interior panels uninstalled. When I = heard of this incident, I advised that Lancair would send the inspector = back to install the panels upon the repairs being made. I even told the = new owner that should he get the aircraft to Redmond, we would make the = repairs there at no cost to him. =20 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 cannot easily be overhauled in the field. There are many = changes that were made to the strut over the years that they have been = in service. Some include an increased shaft wall thickness, self = centering and improved shimmy dampning. Shimmy is not exclusively a = condition caused by the nose strut. Many 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 = period of time, you must check the condition of the engine mount. If = the engine mount is damaged, you can be sure that it is contributing to = the shimmy.....but it is not necessarily the underlying cause of the = shimmy. Yes, as 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 occasionally serviced with Nitrogen as they all do. And yes, = my strut has been overhauled to include the newer parts available = through Lancair. =20 Keep in mind that Lancair did not willingly go into this insurance = inspection 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 requirements will be lowered. =20 Joe =20 ------=_NextPart_000_00DF_01CA03D8.6F40AFD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I did not ask for a copy of the report, nor do I believe = I am entitled to one.=C2=A0 The Buyer, who is, =C2=A0told me that he could = not get one.

 

It was my opinion sitting in the cockpit riding the plane = down, and the FBO mechanic observing, that the lifting point pin was the last = point to fail after the starboard wing tip hit the hanger floor, and the jack = shafts went through the wing and =C2=A0rear cockpit floor.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Both = mains were on the hanger floor when the nose wheel came down.=C2=A0 If the Lancair inspector believed = that the FBO lifting point pin and the jack points were unsafe, he had a duty to = reject them.=C2=A0 =C2=A0The damage to the wing on the exterior and to the rear = foot well had nothing to do with the interior panels, the pressurization cover,=C2=A0 = the seats, or the engine cowling. =C2=A0=C2=A0In fact, the FBO mechanic installed = them all and the plane flew to Phoenix unpressurized with speed tape over the holes, = =C2=A0to be repaired at Phoenix Composites.=C2=A0 I can only imagine what the Buyer = thought of the generous offer of repair if only he would fly the plane to = Redmond.=C2=A0 The time, hotel costs, =C2=A0commercial fare back =C2=A0to Phoenix and then = up again to pick it up,=C2=A0 and fuel costs would be more than the cost of repairs in = Phoenix.

 

But of course, Mr. Bartels knows all of = that.

 

From:= Lancair = Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = n427jb@bellsouth.net
Sent: 07/13/2009 8:44 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML]

 

The incident Bill Edwards describes lacks certain information that I believe 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 financially responsible for the inspection.  That means that he is not entitled 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 other tools and materials that = cannot be transported easily or economically to the inspection site.  The = jacks and other equipment were available, and the aircraft was lifter using = that equipment.  Mr. Edwards had a different style 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 who 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, produced only minor damage.  Since the damage was to be repaired, our inspector left = the interior panels uninstalled.  When I heard of this incident, I = advised that Lancair would send the inspector back to install the panels upon = the repairs being made.  I even told the new owner that should he get = the aircraft 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 cannot easily be overhauled in the = field.  There are many changes that were made to the strut over the years that = they have been in service.  Some include an increased shaft wall = thickness, self centering and improved shimmy dampning.  Shimmy is not = exclusively a condition caused by the nose strut.  Many 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 period of time, you must check the condition of the engine mount.  If the engine mount is damaged, you = can be sure that it is contributing to the shimmy.....but it is not necessarily = the underlying cause of the shimmy.  Yes, as 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 occasionally serviced with = Nitrogen as they all do.  And yes, my strut has been overhauled to include the = newer parts available through Lancair.

 

Keep in mind that Lancair did not willingly go into = this insurance inspection 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 requirements = will be lowered.

 

Joe 

------=_NextPart_000_00DF_01CA03D8.6F40AFD0--