X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 13:30:22 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm26-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([66.94.236.225] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 6031432 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 08:00:37 -0500 Received-SPF: neutral receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.94.236.225; envelope-from=browncc1@verizon.net Received: from [66.94.237.193] by nm26.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Jan 2013 13:00:02 -0000 Received: from [98.138.85.44] by tm4.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Jan 2013 13:00:01 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp101.vzn.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Jan 2013 13:00:01 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 893060.53602.bm@smtp101.vzn.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: _pCVrGYVM1nDMYG3sNr7B4X6i7DU58aZahOnFe0iz_PdutM fZoiyHYlLO2mIAsn.T97gP8DoEG2hxulSdxA0WPmN9zMILNtAJGWxNb29abB 5fwwLjmaQxfDXs5BgqiP8tvkWGEJAH1EqMvSD03Lmt.0mfjVohd9XtzWYfyT YZ5TG1b7mnbSLEZQG_.eGPDCRaxgWVCH53YMnhI4v_X6lvEJMdSFEvAPasoq Ej3ocxJeyBGMnURCPir.7lvB_yQPMhfjBWvhcCBXsLk69iIGsm2Kw2nZ533U SLnQnZZoGao_NSl.GAHV0BwBfcKiKYfXVCyCbx7BRSjBOymq8gNFSF9_88BZ PVm70_ZF0CqNmh6VeVwsHQO6VM1eSVDIFltXDvxKlh9sXuH6yNYKIIahkQns UIUPJ0LkLd1HXOVdqNIgtpM_YFgW1OLcs54Gq7WsoR0lF2xcIjOCRPBDCem7 o9lZP9v5UsmgC4bPPoiNobhe3ihE- X-Yahoo-SMTP: F49l9g6swBC0R9n8vJIbm7Tf3P8Xlmia8rHIwTlO__Ml Received: from chass-imac-2.home (browncc1@72.64.105.53 with plain) by smtp101.vzn.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Jan 2013 13:00:01 +0000 UTC From: Charles Brown Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-13-879794707 Subject: Re: [LML] safety X-Original-Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 07:00:00 -0600 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: X-Original-Message-Id: <2BA20C35-8EEB-42B3-97B3-38A394FDC925@verizon.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) --Apple-Mail-13-879794707 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Ed, I would agree wholeheartedly for any of the turbine powered machines = and any Lancair IV -- they are not for joyriding. At the other end, you = wouldn't want to force a 235/320/360 pilot to an IFR rating; they might = be in it for low-cost fun. I guess Legacies and ES are somewhere in the = middle. I wonder if it makes sense to draft a LML or LOBO recommended = list of pilot qualifications by airframe/engine combination. This could = be a tool for the insurance industry, whose help I would rather enlist = than have the FAA intervene with regulations. =20 Charley On Jan 27, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Ed Gray wrote: I believe we should exert MAXIMUM pressure on fellow Lancair pilots to = get IFR ratings. These birds are not suited for amateur pilots, and the = stats show it. =20= --Apple-Mail-13-879794707 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Ed, I would agree wholeheartedly for any of = the turbine powered machines and any Lancair IV -- they are not for = joyriding. At the other end, you wouldn't want to force a = 235/320/360 pilot to an IFR rating; they might be in it for low-cost = fun. I guess Legacies and ES are somewhere in the middle. I = wonder if it makes sense to draft a LML or LOBO recommended list of = pilot qualifications by airframe/engine combination. This could be = a tool for the insurance industry, whose help I would rather enlist than = have the FAA intervene with regulations. =

Charley

On Jan 27, = 2013, at 5:59 AM, Ed Gray wrote:

I believe we should exert MAXIMUM pressure on fellow Lancair = pilots to get IFR ratings. These birds are not suited for amateur = pilots, and the stats show it. =

= --Apple-Mail-13-879794707--