Canopy design/quality issue

Submitted by Anonymous on

Forums: 

From: Jack Morgan <jmorgan1023 [at] comcast.net>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Canopy design/quality issue
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 12:40:20 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>

I own a 4P so have tried to hold off on comments but finally can't resist.


I suggest those that believe there is a design flaw get familiar with the quality improvement processes that are now well established. There are several sources going by names like 8D(old Ford document), continuous improvement, etc. The basis of all of them is to first identify root cause and all have 8 to 10 or so steps. Much time and money was wasted by the industry chasing imagined design flaws with no improvement in quality until these processes were perfected and followed. Worse the old approach often introduced new quality issues with no improvement to the original problem.

I have no opinion on whether the Legacy flies safely with the canopy unlatched but the issue reminds me of one of the several accusations made against V tail Bonanzas which included door pops. In my 700 hours in the Bonanza I managed to not properly lock the door and experienced one…… man is it noisy. A Bonanza was lost years ago in Phoenix to a door pop and the resulting NTSB activity ended up not condemning the airplane.

I suggest that the white paper is a valuable reference to start the process of identifying root cause and congratulate the authors. As such it should not reference possible fixes as they may not be related to root cause. Most aircraft crashes can be said to be caused by uncontrollable airplanes but the pilot inputs to the controls are the usual root cause given the envelope the airplane must be operated in. If the allowed envelope is too restrictive the result is usually a higher accident rate due to overtaxed pilot requirements.

True quality improvement is hard work and requires much attention to detail. Hopefully the interested folks on the list can propose actions to establish root cause before moving on to the rest of the steps. Not doing so could condemn the aircraft or worse increase the accident or injury rate if unrelated "fixes" are implemented.

Hoping to help.

Jack Morgan




On May 6, 2014, at 6:00 AM, Lancair Mailing List wrote:




From: Kevin Stallard <kevin [at] arilabs.net

>
Subject: Re: [LML] Legacy White Paper
Date: May 5, 2014 7:10:14 AM EDT



Hey Hamid,

I'm not making an argument that requires data.  My argument and issue with the paper is that it contains no data and before we muddy the waters as to what is what we need data.

What if this canopy thing is a red herring?  What if people only have to get accustom to the wind noise in order to live?  Is all the hubbub and design effort necessary?  We need to stop wringing our hands and fly our airplanes.

The bottom line is that the  premise of this paper is that there is a problem with the airplane when the canopy is open.  It isn't neutral about this.  Now folks are running off spending time designing this and that an if we aren't careful, insurance companies are going to require this and that if we don't shed a bright white light on the real cause.

Too many have successfully managed their airplane with the canopy open for us to have to suffer any more negativity surrounding Lancair.

I ran into a Airforce pilot at KSLN the other day.  One of his first questions was "Isn't that airplane dangerous?"   Uuuggg!   I hate that question.  The Legacy isn't a dangerous airplane.  And papers with these kinds of premises (or is it premi :) ) get into people's head and wham, we have a bad reputation.

Getting out of bed can be dangerous.   Don't you see why we have to be careful about the conclusions we draw on some anecdotal evidence?  This is all I am trying to say.

Thanks,
Kevin