Mr. Stuart,

In reading my post and your post it seems you have misquoted me more than
once. I did not claim that these LML posts drive our insurance rates or that
your claim to fly beyond Vne affects our insurance rates. What I said is
that our insurance rates are driven by our accident rate and that we need
to change pilot behaviour [for the better].

You have spent many posts defending your [IMHO suicidal] piloting behaviour
in flying beyond Vne. I have to ask myself why does this person cling to
this belief in the face of overwhelming arguments to the contrary. In other
discussions with other pilots like yourself on this forum after a little
research I have almost always found the pilot to be a private pilot with
very little total flight time who "believes" that something they are doing
that is patently dangerous is completely safe and legal. One poor chap is
now dead doing exactly what he thought was safe. Look up the LML archives
for Shannon Knoepflin.

Personally, I would not gloat about the Legacy safety record.The Legacy
fleet is not far behind the IV's in total accidents. Fact:  There have been
8 reported Lancair accidents this year.  2 each IVP and Legacy. The other
four accidents occurred to 200/300 series aircraft. What has happened to the
IVP fleet in regard to insurance will happen to the Legacy fleet--unless we
as a community turn this around. Fact: Over 40 per cent of all our accidents
occur to pilots with less than 100 hours in make and model. Fact: Over 55%
of all Lancair accidents occur to private pilots--while less than 40% of all
pilots are private pilots.

Is flying beyond Vne risky?--IMHO as a CFI and a DPE and aircraft accident
investigator--yes. Its also illegal per 14 cfr 91.9. If you think your rates
are low and flying beyond Vne is okay then "man up" and  send these posts to
your insurance company and see how low they stay. If you think flying beyond
Vne is safe and legal then "man up" and send this stuff to your local FSDO.
They might be interested in talking to you.

As I stated in the last post,  I and a few others have worked our tails off
for the last 18 months forming LOBO, developing a training program and
getting the insurance industry behind us. We have also been working with the
FAA to improve our Lancair safety record. Please do not screw this up for us
and auger in any time soon.

OBTW--after Shannon's fatal several of us contacted the NTSB and forwarded
these typse of emails to the them. You can read about it in the NTSB report.

Best Regards,

Jeff Edwards
President LOBO
changing one mind at a time.




-----Original Message-----
From: Randy <randystuart@hotmail.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Wed, Dec 16, 2009 9:02 am
Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list

Well, here we go again.... The sky is falling.

With the spirit of the "Tone on the list", again, anyone that said they have
flown beyond Vne is attacked.
Blaming us for your insurance rates because I said I have flown past Vne?
Now you've added we must be "Low time / Low experienced folks".. Really????

Year after year after year after year I've never had any problem binding a
full policy for my Lancair, for a very reasonable premium, nor has anyone
else I know with an LNC-2. LNC-4's on the other hand, the Lancair's that do
seem to cause many fatals, is hard to insure and expensive.
And you blame that on a post on the LML??? Do you have any proof what so
ever backing this extraordinary claim? Are all the underwriters reading this
forum and raising LNC-4 rates because someone with an LNC-2 said he likes to
go fast?? No wait, it was " blatant risky behavior"...
My rates have gone down.... Hummm.. I guess I must be a "Good risk"..

This is not constructive criticism, this down right rude and abusive to talk
that way about other pilots. This is my choice, not yours, I don't believe
I'm "risky".
I don't raise your rates ( which is a ridiculous statement ). LNC-4's have
proven to be a bad risk thought the years, not LNC-2's or LNC-3's, that's
why your rates are high! And that's why LNC-2's are low.

This is a great forum and there are many very experienced pilots and
builders here, and some of us fly past Vne.. And do aerobatics and close
formation, and race.
If you can't understand how a four place, high risk, very
costly, pressurized experimental aircraft has a very high premium, you
should consult an insurance broker and ask how they calculative the premium.
I would bet it's not from a post on the internet.

Note: This was all written with a nice tone.

Randy Stuart
LNC-2


----- Original Message -----

From: vtailjeff@aol.com
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:33 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list
Mark,

Very well said-- and I might add that LOBO has been trying for over a year
now to get insurance at affordable rates for members-- but this mission
depends on reducing the accidents whcih in turn on changing people's belief
systems about risk and safety. If you post something that smacks of blatant
risky behaviour do not be surprised if someone on the list makes a remark
about it. Many of the folks who have held such beliefs are generally low
time/ low experience folks.Unfortunately, some of them are no longer with
us--and it is not because they quit the list.  Many of the commenters are
the opposite. This is a great forum to learn if one is willing to accept
constructive criticism from some very experienced folks in the industry.
On another note, I have been speaking to an insurance company that wants us
to help them identify who are the good insurance risks. Those owners would
hopefully qualify for a preferred rate. If  you are intrerested contanct me
privately.

Best Regards--have a safe and happy holiday season,

Jeff Edwards
President, LOBO

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Sletten <mwsletten@gmail.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:40 am
Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list

Jim,

Email is a terrible medium for communicating tone. It’s difficult to
accurately project and/or discern emotion via email. Often a writer intends
to be sarcastic in a humorous way, but it is received as demeaning and
derogatory.

Some of us military types grew up in a flying environment where one’s skills
and judgment were under constant review. Public post-flight reviews (to give
you an idea of the mindset, we called them ‘critiques’) were mandatory, and
all aspects of a mission were evaluated for mission effectiveness and
safety. For training missions, the guiding principle was (still is I’m sure)
‘safety of flight is paramount.’ For operational missions crews might assume
higher risks to get the job done, but compromising safety for a training
mission was , um, not in accordance with official guidance.

Despite our government’s current effort to the contrary, you can’t write a
rule book that prohibits EVERY sort of dangerous
behavior/mindset/inclination. This, of course, is especially true in an
organization where such behaviors/mindsets/inclinations would be
advantageous, depending on the mission. There are many things you can do
with a USAF aircraft that, while not specifically forbidden, would be
considered dangerous -- even negligent -- on a training mission. The problem
is you can’t simply throw away a pilot you have spent millions training for
behaving stupidly on a single flight. And sanctioning via official means
(reprimands, courts-martial, etc.) usually kills any chance of promotion, so
you may as well count on a person so sanctioned to punch out (of the
service) at the earliest opportunity. Understanding this, the leadership
chooses to use peer pressure to modify behavior rather than more official
means. It turns out the peer pressure idea works better anyway.

In a  community so inculcated with the ‘safety culture,’ engaging in
behavior not officially prohibited, but considered unsafe, was grounds for
public humiliation during a post-flight critique with the crews of all
aircraft involved, and maybe even during a monthly safety meeting in front
of the entire wing. Such public humiliation served several purposes
including (but not limited to):

- It provides a teaching moment to show how easy it is to make bad decisions
- Those experiencing such public humiliation rarely repeat the offending
behavior
- Those observing learned the hazard of engaging in such behavior

I don’t bring all this up to suggest ritual public humiliation as a means to
make all Lancair pilots identical automatons of safety. I only wish to point
out that while public rebukes may come across as pompous personal puffing
(and some may be), often it is simply a matter of habit – and old habits are
hard to break.

My suggestion is for both sides to attempt tone deafness. Those posting
their disapproval of others should make every attempt to post opinion backed
by fact and data, but absent the vitriol. If the subject
behavior/idea/mindset is heinous enough it will speak for itself. Humor is
often an effective tool to use in such cases, but beware the problems noted
above. If you want to be funny, be sure it’s funny and not mean spirited.
You might find them trite and silly, but adding an emoticon to your text can
be an effective means of deflecting hurt feelings. (I can’t wait to see how
some of these guys react to this one… :-P)

Those on the receiving end of a critique should assume the best of
intentions on the part of the poster. Speaking for myself, if I offer an
opinion about another’s judgment or behavior, I do so with the sole purpose
of avoiding injury or bent airplanes. My guess is the vast majority of those
posting negatively have the same goal. In other words, as difficult as it
may be, when you’re getting spanked try to get the message and ignore the
tone.

One thing I would point out to those who truly have the best of intentions
(improving safety) when critiquing another: If your message bounces off the
defensive wall sure to go up after you deride his/her ego, your best
intention to ‘help’ a person will come to naught, because even the best,
most obvious message is wasted if the receiver doesn’t get it

Even if everyone completely disregards this rambling missive, Jim, please
don’t quit the forum because you are unhappy with the tone. I have learned
some very important lessons while observing the (often unpleasant)
dissection of another person’s behavior. I’ve learned some of the most
important lessons of my life after being shown (always unpleasant) how I’d
behaved stupidly or irresponsibly. Yes, it hurt, but I am forever grateful
to the @$$holes who pointed out the error of my ways.

Respectfully,

Mark Sletten

From: Jim Scales [mailto:joscales98@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:52 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Tone on list

In my opinion the tone on the list recently, in a couple of the threads, has
gotten pretty abrasive.  Rather than abandon a resource that I have utilized
for a long time, I thought I would make a couple of comments.

Seems that every so often there are those who feel the need to puff
themselves up and put others down.  In my opinion it really defeats the
purpose of the list and turns other listers off.  I'm guessing it also
greatly inhibits the willingness of a lot of people to participate.

After about 3 back and forth attempts to change the opponent's point of view
it would seem that agreeing to disagree would be the adult thing to do.
When all is said and done it really is each individual's right to make his
or her own decisions.

To summarize, I participate because I want to be the best, safest, smartest
pilot I can be.  I believe most of us hang around for the same reasons.  It
doesn’t do me or any other lister any good if the tone that is used to
present the information prevents the information from being received.