|
|
<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>
You have got to be kidding me! Doesn't anyone ever take responsibility for their own actions anymore? Frankly, it is amazing to me we can build our own airplanes at all. Lancairs job here is not to hold our hands while we jack up our airplanes. It is to inspect the airplane. If the airplanes fall of my jacks or the FBO's jacks, it is the responsibility of whoever chose the equipment and technique (obviously bad) to put it up there in the first place. I don't let anyone jack up my airplane without me being present 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.
If you don't have the adequate equipment in your hangar, fly it to Redmond and have it done there.
Fix your airplane and get over it.
Jeez this is frustrating!!!
Craig Gainza
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:56:57 -0400
From: mdpilot982@gmail.com
Subject: [LML] Re:
I read Joes response with interest, just to see what Lancairs
response would be. Somewhat disappointing but not unexpected. While I don’t 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.
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.
|
|