X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.67] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with ESMTP id 6489382 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 08:59:58 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.67; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=CdGVE6Q9ZotnYLumlPQVLwYqinfFUqogBaDFKBOI0RGRkb5U2XA5hmragNzRaVmX; h=Received:From:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:To:References:Message-Id:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [71.241.141.195] (helo=[192.168.1.24]) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1VOogc-0007Zf-Rr for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 08:59:23 -0400 From: Colyn Case Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5-227320097 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Undeliverable mail: Re: [LML] Re: Question on Legacy MG Strut Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 08:59:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Message-Id: <3CEABD75-6E53-4867-9F8C-2942897BB222@earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da940aa4eaf7faa43bbd8fb8a442a744d3c08350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 71.241.141.195 --Apple-Mail-5-227320097 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I'm not sure of all the issues here but I can imagine Lancair needing to = make tough decisions where to put their resources. In any case, I = suspect more money flows into Lancair from the President than flows out. On Sep 25, 2013, at 7:51 AM, Mike's Gmail wrote: The funny thing! I use to be able to buy seal kits from Lancair. Now = that the President of Lancair owns the landing gear company, you no = longer can. In my world we call that a monopoly or conflict of = interest. Not very good for business. =20 A hangar mate across the way got so pissed about this he just sold his = ES. Said if you can work with the company that made your airplane parts = I'm selling, and he did! Mike Larkin 424LL Sent from my iPhone On Sep 24, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Paul Miller wrote: > I found your note on the liability waiver and refusal to provide = instructions an interesting position by Lancair. I'd like to expand the = topic and make a few comments about owners being able to maintain their = aircraft in an airworthy condition. I have personal and group = involvement in this matter with certified aircraft. >=20 > For decades the alphabet groups and FAA and manufacturers have been = fighting over the FARs that requires type certificated US aircraft = manufacturers to make available airworthiness instructions to the = "owner" so that the aircraft can be maintained in an airworthy condition = at all times. This means instructions, parts availability, CRMs and = more. Many manufacturers have gone to extremes to satisfy that = requirement. >=20 > Some firms like Airbus do not want to disclose proprietary data and = have purposely not adhered to the FARs in this respect and forced owners = to overhaul or replace parts at great expense. Those battles continue. = Conversely, companies like Beech and Cessna have long made the parts = and data available and Cessna will even cross-reference Cessna part = numbers for original part numbers so you can go source the original or = generic part needed (o-rings, motors, brushes etc). King Air landing = gear (for example) is arguably more complex than an ESCO strut but the = Beech gear can: >=20 > a) be exchanged at Beech or > b) sent to any shop of your choice qualified in that category or > c) repaired and overhauled in your own hangar. >=20 > That's because Beech makes available to owners and shops all the = Component Repair Manuals and instructions needed to accomplish the = tasks. >=20 > While Lancairs may be different because of the experimental category, = these aircraft must still be maintained in an airworthy condition. = Therefore, I would argue that Lancair should make the data available to = any owner or shop so that Lancairs can be maintained in an airworthy = condition whether it be repairs, overhauls, inspections or whatever is = needed to ensure airworthiness. Those procedures and the parts = necessary to maintain them are part of what makes the Lancair an = airplane--not just the original kit. >=20 > If I were running the ship, I'd do whatever I can to make the = operating costs for Lancairs as low as possible. I'd publish and sell a = complete set of manuals for overhaul and repair instructions (as TCM = does for the engine) plus I'd offer to perform the work in-house as well = (if that makes sense). That makes for a very happy owner group and = keeps costs under control and allows everyone in the world to maintain = an airworthy airplane. >=20 > It is the owner's airplane, the owner's strut and the owner's = responsibility to maintain it in an airworthy condition. The data to = keep it airworthy is not proprietary and should not be locked away in = someone else's cabinet. That's just wrong. >=20 > I could be wrong but I look forward to comments on that position and I = suggest anyone looking to buy any airplane simply ask where all the = instructions for continued airworthiness reside. The answers can be = revealing. >=20 > Paul >=20 > On 24 September 2013 04:19, Valin & Allyson Thorn = wrote: > Paul, >=20 > Normally this work is done by Lancair and that is their strong = preference. We wanted to do it ourselves for its educational value. = After some deliberations, Lancair agreed and required us signing a = liability waiver and they would provide absolutely no instructions but = would sell us the seals. >=20 --Apple-Mail-5-227320097 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii I'm = not sure of all the issues here but I can imagine Lancair needing to = make tough decisions where to put their resources.   In any case, I = suspect more money flows into Lancair from the President than flows = out.



On Sep 25, 2013, at = 7:51 AM, Mike's Gmail wrote:

The = funny thing!  I use to be able to buy seal kits from Lancair. =  Now that the President of Lancair owns the landing gear company, = you no longer can.  In my world we call that a monopoly or conflict = of interest.  Not very good for business. =  

A hangar mate across the way got so = pissed about this he just sold his ES.  Said if you can work with = the company that made your airplane parts I'm selling, and he = did!


Mike = Larkin

424LL

Sent from my = iPhone

On Sep 24, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Paul Miller <pjdmiller@gmail.com> = wrote:

I found your note = on the liability waiver and refusal to provide instructions an = interesting position by Lancair.  I'd like to expand the topic and = make a few comments about owners being able to maintain their aircraft = in an airworthy condition.  I have personal and group involvement = in this matter with certified aircraft.

For = decades the alphabet groups and FAA and manufacturers have been fighting = over the FARs that requires type certificated US aircraft manufacturers = to make available airworthiness instructions to the "owner" so that the = aircraft can be maintained in an airworthy condition at all times. =  This means instructions, parts availability, CRMs and more. =  Many manufacturers have gone to extremes to satisfy that = requirement.

Some firms like Airbus do not want to disclose = proprietary data and have purposely not adhered to the FARs in this = respect and forced owners to overhaul or replace parts at great expense. =  Those battles continue.   Conversely, companies like Beech = and Cessna have long made the parts and data available and Cessna will = even cross-reference Cessna part numbers for original part numbers so = you can go source the original or generic part needed  (o-rings, = motors, brushes etc).  King Air landing gear (for = example) is arguably more complex than an ESCO strut but the Beech = gear can:

 a) be exchanged at Beech or
 b) = sent to any shop of your choice qualified in that category = or
 c) repaired and overhauled in your own = hangar.

That's because Beech makes available to = owners and shops all the Component Repair Manuals and instructions = needed to accomplish the tasks.

While Lancairs may be different because of the = experimental category, these aircraft must still be maintained in an = airworthy condition.  Therefore, I would argue that Lancair should = make the data available to any owner or shop so that Lancairs can be = maintained in an airworthy condition whether it be repairs, overhauls, = inspections or whatever is needed to ensure airworthiness.  Those = procedures and the parts necessary to maintain them are part of what = makes the Lancair an airplane--not just the original kit.

If I were running the ship, I'd do whatever I can to = make the operating costs for Lancairs as low as possible.  I'd = publish and sell a complete set of manuals for overhaul and repair = instructions (as TCM does for the engine) plus I'd offer to perform the = work in-house as well (if that makes sense).  That makes for a very = happy owner group and keeps costs under control and allows everyone in = the world to maintain an airworthy airplane.

It is the owner's = airplane, the owner's strut and the owner's responsibility to maintain = it in an airworthy condition.  The data to keep it airworthy is not = proprietary and should not be locked away in someone else's cabinet. =  That's just wrong.

I could = be wrong but I look forward to comments on that position and I suggest = anyone looking to buy any airplane simply ask where all the instructions = for continued airworthiness reside.   The answers can be = revealing.

Paul

On 24 = September 2013 04:19, Valin & Allyson Thorn <thorn@starflight.aero> wrote:

Paul,

Normally this work is done by = Lancair and that is their strong preference.  We wanted to do = it ourselves for its educational value.  After some = deliberations, Lancair agreed and required us signing a liability waiver = and they would provide absolutely no instructions but would sell us the = seals.


= --Apple-Mail-5-227320097--