Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 10:42:58 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-4987463@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=70.62.14.124; envelope-from=r.simon@ustek.com
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Aircraft Repairs
Thread-Topic: Aircraft Repairs
Thread-Index: AcwVV2C8jtKckpC5QxmP1LJtcUY3aw==
From: "Lancair" <lancair-esp@ustek.com>

Mike,

From my personal experience I have found that there is a mix  of
response from our industry: the good are very very good and the bad are
very very (very) bad.  The good do superb work for reasonable
compensation (RDD and the Hadlich duo come to mind) and the bad steal
your money and leave you with an unsafe aircraft (names withheld). =20

It is the bad ones that stick in our minds.  They could be bad because
they do not have the technical expertise, or because they have no people
skills, or because they are just flat out trying to cheat the builder.
What per cent are very good?  10%?  20%?  That means the balance are
just average or bad and are therefore suspect.   =20

Perhaps the writer has a pessimistic view but that that has been shown
to be closer to reality than the optimist's view.  No apology justified.


Robert M. Simon
ES-P N301ES  =20


-----Original Message-----
Your comment that "He is a very responsive person which is [unusual in
the aviation industry]", was uncalled for, especially  so in the
experimental aircraft maintenance business community.=20
Would you care to air your linen in more detail, and let the LML group
make a collective decision? Or perhaps an "academic apology" is in
order...
Sincerely,  Mike Wynn,  LNC Builder/AV Business owner/C-Pilot/A&P 34
years/ex FAA IA
=20