X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:42:49 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from blu0-omc3-s21.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.96] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14) with ESMTP id 3756495 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:08:59 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.116.96; envelope-from=cgainza@msn.com Received: from BLU112-W7 ([65.55.116.73]) by blu0-omc3-s21.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:08:25 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: cgainza@msn.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_6c9656b0-1733-4c61-b039-011261fc27c5_" X-Originating-IP: [71.198.48.232] From: Craig Gainza X-Original-To: Lancair List Subject: RE: [LML] Re: X-Original-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:08:25 -0700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jul 2009 01:08:25.0668 (UTC) FILETIME=[96F5F840:01CA041F] --_6c9656b0-1733-4c61-b039-011261fc27c5_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You have got to be kidding me! Doesn't anyone ever take responsibility for= their own actions anymore? Frankly=2C it is amazing to me we can build ou= r own airplanes at all. Lancairs job here is not to hold our hands while w= e jack up our airplanes. It is to inspect the airplane. If the airplanes = fall of my jacks or the FBO's jacks=2C it is the responsibility of whoever = chose the equipment and technique (obviously bad) to put it up there in th= e first place. I don't let anyone jack up my airplane without me being pre= sent because I have done it 1000 times. I know the best way to do it. If = the inspection is in my hangar I need to provide the adequate equipment to = thoroughly test the aircraft and I am responsible. =20 If you don't have the adequate equipment in your hangar=2C fly it to Redmon= d and have it done there. Fix your airplane and get over it. Jeez this is frustrating!!! Craig Gainza To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon=2C 13 Jul 2009 19:56:57 -0400 From: mdpilot982@gmail.com Subject: [LML] Re:=20 I read Joes response with interest=2C just to see what Lancairs response would be. Somewhat disappointing but not unexpected. While I don= =92t have a complete grasp of all the minutia it seems that Lancair=2C if Lancair or = the agent of Lancair were setting out to do an off site inspection prudence wo= uld 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=2C nor is hope a reasonable strategy otherwise. If there were con= cerns by the experts beforehand=2C these should have been articulated. Basic busine= ss and relational stuff here. Sounds like a captain of the ship doctrine applies = here=2C 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 f= ell off the jacks after things shifted and there were damages=2C but that was s= tating the obvious. What was not stated was who was responsible=2C and while Lanc= air airplanes are heavenly=2C 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=2C July 13=2C 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=2C thus=2C 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 can= not be transported easily or economically to the inspection site. The jacks and other equipment were available=2C and the aircraft was lifter using tha= t 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 o= f the non-standard jack points. Irrespective of who purchased the inspection=2C or how the jack came out of the jack point=2C it is a fact th= at the jack came out of the jack point and=2C thankfully=2C produced only minor damage. Since the damage was to be repaired=2C our inspector left the interior panels uninstalled. When I heard of this incident=2C 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=2C we would make the repairs there at no cost to him. =20 Joe =20 --_6c9656b0-1733-4c61-b039-011261fc27c5_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <=3Bif Lancair or the agent of Lancair  =3Bwere setting out to do an off site inspection prud= ence would suggest they were required in fact to assure the jacks and lifting mechanism of whatever type and the people involved were competent>=3B

You hav= e got to be kidding me! =3B Doesn't anyone ever take responsibility for= their own actions anymore? =3B Frankly=2C it is amazing to me we can b= uild our own airplanes at all. =3B Lancairs job here is not to hold our= hands while we jack up our airplanes. =3B It is to inspect the airplan= e. =3B If the airplanes fall of my jacks or the FBO's jacks=2C it is th= e responsibility of whoever chose the equipment and technique (obviously ba= d) =3B to put it up there in the first place. =3B I don't let anyon= e jack up my airplane without me being present because I have done it 1000 = times. =3B I know the best way to do it. =3B If the inspection is i= n my hangar I need to provide the adequate equipment to thoroughly test the= aircraft and I am responsible. =3B

If you don't have th= e adequate equipment in your hangar=2C fly it to Redmond and have it done t= here.

Fix your airplane and get over it.

Jeez this is frustra= ting!!!

Craig Gainza


To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon=2C 13 Jul 2009 19:56:57 -0400
F= rom: mdpilot982@gmail.com
Subject: [LML] Re:

I read Joes respo= nse with interest=2C just to see what Lancairs response would be. =3B Somewhat disappointing but not unexpected. = =3B While I don=92t have a complete grasp of all the minutia it seems that Lancair=2C if Lancair or = the agent of Lancair  =3Bwere setting out to do an off site inspection prud= ence would suggest they were required in fact to assure the jacks and lifting mechanism of whatever type and the people involved were competent. =3B Ignorance is = not a strategy=2C nor is hope a reasonable strategy otherwise. =3B If there w= ere concerns by the experts beforehand=2C these should have been articulated. =3B Basic= business and relational stuff here. =3B Sounds like a captain of the ship doctrine a= pplies here=2C 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. =3B No question the = plane fell off the jacks after things shifted and there were damages=2C but that was s= tating the obvious. =3B What was not stated was who was responsible=2C and whi= le Lancair airplanes are heavenly=2C this was not an act of God.

 =3B

Michael Smith

 =3B

From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of n427jb@bellsouth.ne= t
Sent: Monday=2C July 13=2C 2009 10:44 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML]

 =3B

The incident Bill Edwards describes lacks certain information that I believe would be important for those interested in "the rest of the story." =3B Mr. Edwards aircraft did not order the inspection=2C thus=2C Mr. Edwards was not financially responsible for the inspection. =3B That means that he is not entitled to a copy of the ins= pection report. =3B Lancair requires that the aircraft being inspected be locat= ed 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 can= not be transported easily or economically to the inspection site. =3B The j= acks and other equipment were available=2C and the aircraft was lifter using tha= t equipment. =3B Mr. Edwards had a different style engine lifting point/p= in and it is was this pin that failed during the retract proceedure. =3B The shifting weight of the aircraft was a major factor in the jack coming out o= f the non-standard jack points. =3B Irrespective of who purchased the inspection=2C or how the jack came out of the jack point=2C it is a fact th= at the jack came out of the jack point and=2C thankfully=2C produced only minor damage. =3B Since the damage was to be repaired=2C our inspector left t= he interior panels uninstalled. =3B When I heard of this incident=2C I adv= ised that Lancair would send the inspector back to install the panels upon the repairs being made. =3B I even told the new owner that should he get th= e aircraft to Redmond=2C we would make the repairs there at no cost to him.

 =3B

Joe =3B

= --_6c9656b0-1733-4c61-b039-011261fc27c5_--