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 mail-ew0-f208.google.com ([209.85.219.208] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14) with ESMTP id 3756257 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:48:06 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.219.208; envelope-from=mdpilot982@gmail.com Received: by ewy4 with SMTP id 4so2498509ewy.21 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:47:30 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; b=MYS3zjVFxlVISRy+4OQtfp229y/3lR1U+abmjCoGoF+bPaVLHooZNHx1XmIgbzAerT +v/ci9HRooAWaSU5kNYoPT42oma2weHklhvt8mT2Sfdn8qQl97PM2Q8h0l1pHQO1NE3n m2RmG+eALTpoYK15BNG2PYiTClfPmld8FqFII= Received: by 10.210.76.4 with SMTP id y4mr2581610eba.64.1247521650884; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:47:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from DRSMITH (c-75-72-249-193.hsd1.mn.comcast.net [75.72.249.193]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 7sm2556427eyg.7.2009.07.13.14.47.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:47:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "Michael D. Smith" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] X-Original-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:47:29 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <009e01ca0403$86da31e0$948e95a0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009F_01CA03D9.9E0429E0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcoD0NhFhTdPzqY1TrSfPRPwDm3/SgAMREyQ Content-Language: en-us This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_009F_01CA03D9.9E0429E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I read Joes response with interest, just to see what Lancairs response = would be. Somewhat disappointing but not unexpected. While I = don=E2=80=99t have a complete grasp of all the minutia it seems that = Lancair, if Lancair or the agent of Lancair were setting out to do an = off site inspection prudence would suggest they were required in fact to = assure the jacks and lifting mechanism of whatever type and the people = involved were competent. Ignorance is not a strategy, nor is hope a = reasonable strategy otherwise. If there were concerns by the experts = beforehand, these should have been articulated. Basic business and = relational stuff here. Sounds like a captain of the ship doctrine = applies here, as it seems the scenario would play out that the final go = no go word would fall squarely on eth shoulders of the inspector expert. = No question the plane fell off the jacks after things shifted and there = were damages, but that was stating the obvious. What was not stated was = who was responsible, and while Lancair airplanes are heavenly, this was = not an act of God. =20 Michael Smith =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = n427jb@bellsouth.net Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:44 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 Joe =20 ------=_NextPart_000_009F_01CA03D9.9E0429E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I read Joes response with interest, just to see what = Lancairs response would be.=C2=A0 Somewhat disappointing but not = unexpected.=C2=A0 While I don=E2=80=99t have a complete grasp of all the minutia it seems that Lancair, if Lancair or = the agent of Lancair =C2=A0were setting out to do an off site inspection = prudence would suggest they were required in fact to assure the jacks and lifting mechanism of whatever type and the people involved were competent.=C2=A0 Ignorance is = not a strategy, nor is hope a reasonable strategy otherwise.=C2=A0 If there = were concerns by the experts beforehand, these should have been articulated.=C2=A0 Basic = business and relational stuff here.=C2=A0 Sounds like a captain of the ship doctrine = applies here, as it seems the scenario would play out that the final go no go word = would fall squarely on eth shoulders of the inspector expert.=C2=A0 No question the = plane fell off the jacks after things shifted and there were damages, but that was = stating the obvious.=C2=A0 What was not stated was who was responsible, and = while Lancair airplanes are heavenly, this was not an act of = God.

 

Michael Smith

 

From:= Lancair = Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = n427jb@bellsouth.net
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:44 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.

 

Joe 

------=_NextPart_000_009F_01CA03D9.9E0429E0--