Hi Hamid,

I apologize for leaving that idea with you.  That isn't the intent.

I should have said:

"The idea is that we want people to KNOW whether or not the airplane is
flyable.   If it is flyable, then if the canopy opensŠ..".

What I am trying (perhaps poorly) to communicate is what we have to focus
on, "knowing".  Once we really know what is going on, then we can bring
forth real solutions that can have consistent outcomes.

Right now, we don't and this report, while it contains accident reports,
it also contains erroneous information that then leads to conclusions
that are not built on a good foundation.  I really think this stuff has
to go.  We shouldn't release this as is.

Thanks
Kevin

 



On May 2, 2014, at 7:14 AM, Hamid Wasti <hwasti@lm50.com> wrote:

On 5/2/2014 4:27 AM, Kevin Stallard wrote:

The idea is that we want people to KNOW that the airplane is flyable.
That if the canopy opens, they still need to (and can) fly the airplane.

You have been complaining that the report portrays suppositions as
facts. And then you are doing exactly the same thing yourself. That
severely undermines your credibility and leads people to not take your
arguments seriously.

The facts are that so far we are aware of one person, with unknown and
unique training and experience, flying an airplane that is
aerodynamically different than every other Legacy, under unknown
conditions of weight & balance, was able to land with an open canopy.

You are making a huge and untenable leap of logic extrapolating that
once incident to mean that every Legacy, with its unique aerodynamics,
under every allowable combination of weight & balance, will be flyable
by a proficient pilot with an open canopy.

Regards,

Hamid

--

For archives and unsub
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html

--
For archives and unsub
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html