Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 16:50:01
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: Amateur-Built Accidents

At 02:00 PM 3/21/99 CST, you wrote:
>"According to NTSB, amateur-built airplanes fly less than two percent 
>of the hours yet have ten percent of the accidents. Further, 
>amateur-built airplanes involved in accidents are destroyed 54 
>percent more often than manufactured aircraft and their pilots are 
>killed 88 percent more often"...   
>
>Assuming the facts are as stated, why do you suppose 
>it is so??
>

  I am suspicious of this pronouncement . . . at OSH two 
  years ago, acting administrator Valentine stood on the
  stage at the "Meet the Administrator Meeting" Sunday
  morning and spoke as follows:

  "Amateur built accident rates are on a par with certified
  aircraft. Keep up the good work and we'll stay out of your
  hair."

  I recall viewing this as both a compliment and a threat.
  We could be proud of our accident record but be on notice
  that there are folk within the FAA that would dearly love
  to expand their "helpfulness" into the amateur built world.

  Given that I personally witness that statement and given
  its source, I would REALLY like to see the NTSB pronouncement
  over somebody's signature . . . it wouldn't hurt to have
  access to the source of thier data as well . . . were the
  numbers truly as bad as the quoted paragraph suggest,
  I'd think we'd be building our airplanes to a newly minted
  FAR governing consumer grade aviation . . .

 


       Bob . . .

                       ////
                      (o o)
       ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
       <  Independence Kansas: the     >
       <  Jurassic Park of aviation.   >
       <  Your source for brand new    >
       <  40 year old airplanes.       >
       =================================
          http://www.aeroelectric.com

From: "Nat Puffer" <cozy@extremezone.com>
Subject: COZY: Accident rate
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 09:02:13 -0500

Builders,
Robert Nuckolls posted a message questioning whether the accident rate for
home-builts was any different than for factory builts. At a dinner meeting
we went to at Oshkosh hosted by the insurance industry, I was told
privately that the accident rate for Cozys was one-half that of Cessnas.
Keep up the good work, guys. You deserve the credit!
Nat

From: alwick@juno.com
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:12:02 -0700
Subject: COZY: Re:fuel contamination ...was CRASH

Wayne, thanks for sharing crash info. Over the years I've heard of many
canards which have suffered from contamination. I discovered when
building my plane that I caused the problem when I used vacuum to remove
debris. After cutting the hole for my fuel cap, I went to vacuum tank
interior. Vacuum caused contaminants to spread to far corners of tank
interior instead of going into canister. This occured because the vacuum
hose causes air to rush into tank, thus moving contaminants away from
nozzle. You look into tank and it looks clean as a whistle....until you
look to corners of tank. I will use small diam vacuum hose taped to end
of nozzle when I repeat this process on my other strake. The small diam
hose reduces the qty displaced air and prevents the tornado that
occurred.
Just wanted to warn everyone. This is a very very common failure mode we
all need to heed. FWIW, I also have dual fuel pumps, dual outlet filters,
independant inlets.
Thanks again
-al

On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 20:56:23 -0700 Wayne Lanza <wlanza@bb.iu.net> writes:
> Here's another lesson for us all - the fuel filter had about 60  hours
of time
> on it, so did the airframe. OK guys what seems to accumulate in our 
tanks
> before we put fuel in them? You guessed it - dust, crap, junk,  chunks
and
> all other forms of stuff that goes CLOG! Velocity recommends that  the
fuel 
> filter be changed out on a new airplane after the first 8-10 hours, 
sounds
> reasonable to me.
-al wick
Canopy Latch System guy.
Artificial intelligence in Cockpit
Cozy sn 389 driven by stock Subaru 2.5 ltr.95% complete.

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

From: "Nat Puffer" <cozy@extremezone.com>
Subject: COZY: Accidents
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:10:23 -0600

Dear builders,
During WWII, when I went through flight training in the Navy, I thought, "I
am flying an airplane that someone else built, and airplane that someone
else maintains, I am flying it the way I was taught, and each flight that I
make is because I was told to, so if anything goes wrong, it isn't my
fault." But now I am flying an airplane that I built, with an engine that I
installed, and an airplane that I maintain, and it is my decision every
time I fly, so no matter what happens, it is my responsibility. I can't
blame anybody else.
Nat





Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:16:28 -0600
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: COZY: Aviators-Life and Death


    The silence on these 2 forums regarding a couple recent canard
accidents indicates we don't much like to talk about dying in our
airplanes.  That's understandable, it isn't pleasant and there's much
grief among close friends and family of the guys no longer here.

    But maybe we should talk about it.  Maybe we should talk about the
risk of flight more than we do and perhaps the accident rate would not
be so predicable.  It isn't  just here with us in the canards, it's an
aviation problem across the spectrum of small airplanes.  Those of you
who read the NTSB monthly incident/accident reports know of what I
speak.

    Flight is a calculated risk but many of the risk factors are
manageable.  There is an element of bad luck also, but some of that is
self induced.  Every flight has it's own calculated risk.  First flights
in experimental airplanes have a high risk factor, but it isn't as high
as it was before the tech advisor policy came into being.  I think the
accident rate is down to less than 1% whereas at one time it was around
10%.

    Pilots who feel the need to explore the corners of an airplane's
envelope on a regular basis incur a risk factor not acceptable to the
next guy.  Low altitude sorties always raise the risk meter.

    Perhaps the number one item that could put a dent in the accident
rate is a habit of assessment of risk every time we fly.  The reality of
what we contemplate doing needs to be thought about and an appreciation
of the risk involved acknowledged.  We do, directly or indirectly,
accept the risk of flight because we love so much doing it.  But
sometimes we become so obsessed and distracted with the enjoyment of
flight, or the personal status that a particular "skill" brings us, we
lose touch with the reality of the risk of what's going on.

    Yes, we are all human and have varying degrees of ego to maintain.
There is and always has been an intangible pecking order among pilots
and it sometimes gets us into trouble.  It is a problem with experienced
pilots more than with guys who haven't had the chance to do this or
that.  The truth is,a pilot, whether he be a student in a 152 or a
seasoned retired airline captain, is a "good" pilot only if he knows and
respects his limits and those of his airplane.  When we don't, we find
ourselves outside our personal envelope.  That is why some of this
unpleasant stuff happens to very good pilots.

    I keep reminding myself, none of us are invincible.  The laws of
nature prevail.  If I may quote from an old aviation poem "Aviation in
itself is not inherently dangerous.  But to a even greater degree than
the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity, or
neglect."

dd

From: Roy Grossinger <roy.grossinger@PACCAR.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Aviators-Life and Death
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:13:55 -0800

For those that do not know where the NTSB site is, try http:///www.ntsb.gov
Follow the aviation link and then you can review the nice web site they
have.  There is a search engine on the site and for several dollars a
clearing house will mail you the actual report with pictures.  I ordered the
info packet on the Fl crash a while ago.  I was interested in the failure
modes of the restraint systems: front seats had 2 fatal, back seats had 2
survive.  Nat made a recommendation based on my analysis last year.  If
anyone is interested I can dig up and post a summary for peer review.
I still need to convince a few loved ones that the airplane is safe and
being an engineer I like to back up my statements with numbers and
statistics.  
Below are the NTSB accident reports I believe the first message was
referring to.   My own 2 cents worth, I don't think we builders stick our
heads in the sand concerning aviation accidents involving in some cases our
friends being injuring or dying.  However, I think we tend to not like to
openly discuss or guess to another's demise.  I think John Denver's final
flight is the one big exception of this. (good old media hype) :-(

Roy

NTSB Identification: IAD00FA003
Accident occurred NOV-01-99 at REMINGTON, VA
Aircraft: Coughlin LONG-EZ, registration: N743TC 
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Serious. 
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors.
Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been
completed.

On November 1, 1999, at 1530 eastern standard time, a homebuilt Long-EZ,
N743TC, was destroyed during a collision with trees and terrain while
maneuvering over the Rappahannock River, Remington, Virginia. The airplane
was consumed by post-crash fire. The certificated airline transport (ATP)
rated passenger was seriously injured, and the ATP rated pilot died as a
result of his injuries on November 3, 1999. Visual meteorological conditions
prevailed for the personal flight that originated at the Culpeper Regional
Airport (CJR), approximately 1515. No flight plan was filed for the flight
conducted under 14 CFR Part 91. In telephone interviews, two witnesses who
were fishing in the Rappahannock River at the time of the accident described
seeing the accident airplane earlier in the day and at the time of the
accident. Both witnesses described the airplane's flight path from east to
west over their heads and then returning from the south over the river. The
first witness said: "They flew over us. They were up fairly high heading
[west]. They circled around and when they came back over the river he was
making an extreme hard left to go back [west] and when I saw him, I could
see the underbelly. The wings were at about a 60 or 70 degree angle and it
sort of fluttered a little bit. "It looked like he was gonna make it but he
hit the very, very, top of the trees. He just kept clipping off the tops.
They were really big tall trees. There was no explosion, just a big 'woof'
and a black cloud of smoke." When questioned about the sound of the
airplane's engine, the witness said: "The engine sounded fine. I commented
to my son how good it sounded. The plane sounded outstanding. Good running,
real smooth running machine." The second witness provided a telephone
interview, a written statement, and a diagram of the airplane's flight path.
He said the airplane crossed over head from east to west and turned left
over the woods on the west side of the river. The witness stated the
airplane continued in a left turn and reappeared over the river, heading
north towards his position. He said: "He banked down left into the river
channel and never came out of his bank. He was flying about 200 to 250 feet
then he banked it down into the river like the biplanes do. It was something
around a 45-degree bank. Halfway between 90 degrees and zero. It was a
fairly aggressive bank. I don't know where he lost control, whether it was
over the trees or over the channel. He appeared to be back under control
before he hit the trees; he just couldn't get the nose up. When he dove into
the river, I didn't think anything of it. But he just didn't pull out. The
pilot said, 'I don't understand. I just couldn't get it out of my bank."
When questioned about the sound of the airplane's engine, the second witness
said: "I didn't notice any unusual sounds. If there was smoke, or a sputter,
or a stall, I think I would have recognized it." The wreckage was examined
at the site on November 2, 1999, and all major components were accounted for
at the scene. The wreckage path was oriented 210 degrees and measured
approximately 460 feet from the initial point of tree contact to the main
wreckage. The wreckage path was divided into one-foot increments called
wreckage points (WP). The first tree contact (WP zero) was 60 feet west of
the river's edge, approximately 45 feet above the ground. Structural foam,
aircraft skin, and composite propeller fragments were scattered along the
wreckage path from WP 160 to the main wreckage. The left rudder and the left
winglet were at WP 220 and 235 respectively. Several angular cut branches
were found along the wreckage path. The main wreckage came to rest upright,
oriented 320 degrees, and was consumed by post-crash fire. An elliptical
burn scar, approximately 90 feet long and 30 feet wide, surrounded the main
wreckage. Trees inside the scar were burned to heights approximately 40 feet
above the ground. The airframe, instruments, gauges, and controls were
destroyed by fire. Power control cable continuity was established from the
cockpit to the engine. Routing of flight control cables, push-pull tubes,
and bellcranks was determined from the cockpit to the flight control
surfaces. Control continuity could not be determined. Excessive deformation,
melting, and complete destruction of components by fire was noted throughout
the flight control system. The engine was removed from the site and examined
in a maintenance garage in Remington, Virginia, on November 2, 1999. The
engine and its associated components were extensively damaged by fire.
Impact and fire destroyed the accessory case. The composite propeller blades
were fragmented and fire damaged. Impact and fire destroyed the oil sump and
carburetor. The fragmented, melted accessory case and its associated
components were removed from the back of engine to facilitate rotation of
the internal components. The spark plugs were intact and the electrodes were
tan and gray in color. The cylinders, pistons, and valves were examined by
borescope. These components displayed uniform wear and no anomalies. The
engine was rotated by hand and continuity was established throughout the
powertrain and valvetrain. Compression was confirmed using the thumb method.
Examination of fuel records revealed that N743TC was serviced with 18.5
gallons of 100LL aviation fuel prior to the accident flight. The pilot's
logbook and the airplane's maintenance records were not recovered. The
pilot's most recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) first class
medical certificate was issued July 13, 1999. The pilot reported 3,000 hours
of flight experience on that date. The passenger's most recent FAA first
class medical certificate was issued May 12, 1999. The pilot reported 2,400
hours of flight experience on that date. Weather reported at Manassas
Regional Airport, 20 miles northeast of CJR, was clear skies with winds from
130 degrees at 9 knots. 

NTSB Identification: NYC99LA208
Accident occurred AUG-21-99 at SCOTT, OH
Aircraft: Kolb MARK III, registration: N6268A 
Injuries: 2 Fatal. 
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors.
Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been
completed.

On August 21, 1999, about 1940 Eastern Daylight Time, a homebuilt Kolb Mark
III, N6268A, was substantially damaged after impacting terrain near Scott,
Ohio. The certificated private pilot and passenger were fatally injured.
Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for
the local flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91. According to witnesses, the
pilot had departed from an airstrip located on his property, heading in a
southerly direction. The airplane climbed to about 200 feet above the
ground, then leveled off. About 3 minutes later, the engine noise began to
decrease, "like he was throttling back." The airplane began a left turn, and
disappeared from view. The witness then heard the sound of "plastic tearing,
and breaking of corn stalks." A second witness, who noticed the airplane
after it passed overhead, stated that the airplane made a "weird sound" and
descended nose first toward the ground. A resident, located about 1/2 mile
southwest of the wreckage, found a part of the airplane in a bean field, and
turned it over to the local authorities. A Federal Aviation Administration
Inspector later identified the part as a gap seal. The gap seal was an
airfoil shaped piece of plexi-glass, used to fill the gap left in-between
the wings when they are assembled. The wreckage was retained for further
examination. 

-----Original Message-----
From: James Russell [mailto:fshort@flash.net]
Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 6:55 AM
To: cozy_builders@canard.com
Subject: Re: COZY: Aviators-Life and Death


>    The silence on these 2 forums regarding a couple recent canard
>accidents indicates we don't much like to talk about dying in our
>airplanes.  That's understandable, it isn't pleasant and there's much
>grief among close friends and family of the guys no longer here.
 
Yes, denial isn't just a river in Egypt...

From: Militch@aol.com
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 15:41:14 EST
Subject: Re:  COZY: Aviators-Life and Death


In a message dated 11/12/99 3:16:49 PM, david010@earthlink.net wrote:

>    I keep reminding myself, none of us are invincible.  The laws of
>nature prevail.  If I may quote from an old aviation poem "Aviation in
>itself is not inherently dangerous.  But to a even greater degree than
>the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity, or
>neglect."

This is equally true of riding motorcycles, which I also do. Anything that 
falls down when you screw up or when the ambient conditions are not as 
expected has a high probability of hurting you.  When I ride my bike, I am 
constantly aware of my "out" if something goes wrong.  If I can't identify 
one, I either slow down, or carry on with the understanding that it's great 
fun, but I might really, really regret it in about another 10 seconds.  You 
cannot eliminate risk in life, and you shouldn't want to. That's no better 
than just staying in bed. What you can and should do is manage the risks 
sensibly.  I ride fast, but I do it with leathers, body armor and a good 
helmet and gloves.  I guess the discussions on this group about redundancy 
options, alternative building approaches, etc. fall in the same category - 
risk management.  You just shouldn't stop thinking about it once the plane is 
built, and I doubt that many of us intend to.

The crash the other day appears, from the preliminary report, to have been 
caused by a low-altitude stall due to high g loading. This is kind of like 
coming into a tight curve too fast and losing the front tire.  Been there, 
done that. It hurt a lot, but I was fortunate enough to survive, and won't do 
it again. I also intend to remember this incident and not do the same once my 
plane is flying.

Regards

Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:09:36 -0500
From: Jim Sower <jimsower@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Aviators-Life and Death

I flew tactical jets for nearly 12 years.  Not counting two combat tours,
I 'buried' a friend or acquaintance on the average of every month or two
for upwards of ten years.  Some had vertigo, some were drunk or fatigued,
some were flat-hatting or otherwise being really stupid, some just got in
over their head (training and/or skill wise), some we just never found
out.  Some of these guys were better aviators than I was and I couldn't
figure out why them and not me.  Some were not as good so it seemed
obvious why them and not me.  Some were pretty much just like me.

We were always intensely interested in learning what happened.  I tried to
incorporate ways to prevent stuff that happened to them into my habit
pattern(s) so perhaps it wouldn't happen to me.  Occasionally that
worked.  Mostly, I made a deliberate decision to do stuff that I knew
better.  Nearly ALL of the guys I knew did stuff they knew better either
more or less often than I did.  The rest lied.  Mostly we all survived.
Occasionally one of us did not.  For all of my studying, I was not able to
see any rhyme or reason for how stuff turned out ~ and I fancy myself a
reasonably intelligent, insightful, well educated guy.

I've discovered that People are going to die.  Without my approval.
Typically at times and places and under circumstances that make me pretty
uncomfortable.  It has happened (a lot) and it will keep happening.  I've
spent way too many afternoons with a plastic bag and a butter knife
policing up a friend of mine off the trees and rocks to get all hysterical
when it happens again.  Because it always will.

Am I going to propose all manner of regulations on testing and/or
training?  HELL NO!  Am I going to  weigh my airplane down with all manner
of preposterous technology to deal with this or that non-issue?  HELL NO!
I mean to deal with the cause of about 80% of all GA accidents and maybe
95% of fatalities ~ I'm going to keep trying to discipline MYSELF to stop
making decisions that I know to be stupid and/or dangerous.  Am I going to
honor your decisions regarding how you behave in your very own airplane?
YOU BET!!  Will I get all pushed out of shape if you end up buying the
farm as the result of YOUR decisions?  I don't think so.  I will bless you
and wish you well in your further travels and thank you for reminding me
that I need to be less cocky in my own decisions (if I TRULY mean to stay
out of trouble).

Another thing I have come to believe is that as a culture, we have some
weird and even bizarre attitudes toward death.  For openers, we take it
waaaayyyy too seriously.  Like we seem to regard it as some sort of defeat
~ an affront to our technology ~ an abomination that with proper planning
and management could (and should) be avoided altogether ~ like if I play
my cards just right, I'll be the guy to get out of this place alive.  Its
NUTS!!

Guy gets killed driving to work, doing everything right and we don't turn
a hair.  His cousin gets killed flat-hatting in his homebuilt airplane and
suddenly it's some kind of catastrophe.  Its nuts.  Why is this?  We get
all upset over a half dozen people getting done in by a postal employee or
something six states away, but we bomb and bury alive whole populations or
Iraquis or Kosivars or whatever and nobody turns a hair.  Why is this?
My far-too-lengthy .02           Jim S.


James Russell wrote:

> >    The silence on these 2 forums regarding a couple recent canard
> >accidents indicates we don't much like to talk about dying in our
> >airplanes.  That's understandable, it isn't pleasant and there's much
> >grief among close friends and family of the guys no longer here.
>
> Yes, denial isn't just a river in Egypt...

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:41:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: RE: COZY: Aviators-Life and Death

The Kolb aircraft is not even close to the design of the Ez family. It is a much lighter, aluminum and fabric construction 
with a fiberglass nose fairing. The engine is usually one of the smaller Rotac's.

Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:09:10 -0600
From: "Tom Brusehaver" <tbruseh@uswest.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Aviators-Life and Death

> The crash the other day appears, from the preliminary report, to have been
> caused by a low-altitude stall due to high g loading.

Again, the pilot didn't leave an out.  Also he hit tops of trees,
cause/effect?

Been reviewing the CP's over the past month or so, and Burt over and
over reminds us that the saftey of the plane isn't in question.  Most
of the crashes are due to lot altitude stuff (CFIT, airbatics), or
engine failure.

The fact this one had a fire scares me a little. Burt was pretty proud
of the fact there were virtually no fires in crashes of the Vari-Eze.
There is probably no good explaination of why these planes do or don't
have a fire in a crash, but I would hope some how someone could explain
that.

I guess I could see mostly full fuel, and high speed would be contributing
factors (f=MA).

If you want to talk about it.



Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 18:30:08 -0500
From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" <marcz@ultranet.com>
Subject: COZY: John Graves' Accident

Richard Riley of Renaissance Composites (makers of the Berkut) asked me to
send this to the COZY list:

As many of you know, John Graves was killed last week in the crash of his 
Long EZ in Virginia.  There are some early indications that aileron lockup 
may have been a contributing factor.  Please understand, these are very 
preliminary suggestions of a cause, not conclusive results of an investigation.

At Renaissance we have recently come across two aileron lockup situations, 
both involving Vari-ezes.  The first was caused by inadequate clearance 
between the counterweight, and the lower leading edge of the aileron, and 
the lower trailing edge of the aileron well.  The second was caused by a 
hinge pin migrating out of it's hinge and departing.  In both cases the 
pilots were able to recover and land safely.

We would like to take this opportunity to urge all canard owners to inspect 
their airplanes for these two conditions, and for anything else that might 
cause aileron lock.  At the same time, check the bolts, rod ends and 
bearings throughout your control system.  Certainly these things should be 
part of your condition inspection, and control system play should be part 
of your preflight, but please give them one extra check for safety's sake.

Thank you.

Richard Riley
Renaissance Composites

From: "norm doty" <norm.doty@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: COZY: accidents
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 09:20:14 -0500

regrettably this wont prevent some one else's demise, I've been building for
about 6 yrs now.

some of the things I've been watching others do terrifies me, and when I've
brought it to their attention (politely) and explain why it's a problem I'm
told I'm wrong and they are right.

and after a few more visits they make it plain that they don't want me
around anymore.

so I now keep my advice to myself and just watch them go out and sometimes
fly and sometimes die.

what worries me the most is the bad construction or wiring or substitution
of components, these errors only compound them selves one error upon
another. the really sad part is it probably won't kill the builder but the
planes second or third owner.

my $ 0.02

norm & monda
cozy IV #202
(ford v-6 powered) (see I didn't listen either)

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 12:14:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: COZY: accidents

Was said <they don't want me around anymore.>

Accepting good critizism, in particular when backed up with valid information is important to everyone's safety, and doesn't 
stop at aviation, but everything everyone does. Though the person offering the advice also should remain a gentleman or lady, 
if the advice isn't followed. But it reasonable that the advice should be considered and then discarded, modified, or used as 
offered.

Modern thinking includes brainstorming, where many ideas are quickly put on the table, then in discussion (could be with self) 
the list is reduced.

Ohio State (and most other states) Professional Engineering code of ethics (State Law) requires that a registered engineer, if 
aware of an unsafe condition, (generally in his area of expertice), and if usual methods of correction fail, he MUST notify 
the appropriate authorities. This amounts to "Whistle Blowing". This is a tough call, and I know I probably missed a promotion 
or 2 due to taking stands on safety issues, but in the long run the boss patted on back.

Back to aviation, if something is major safety, could try to enlist help of others to impress the person. But there are times 
one must just back away and turn the other way. 

From: "DL Davis" <dldavis@erols.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Aviators-Life and Death
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 20:19:38 -0500

At least one reason for the silence in the other forum is that the moderator
is censoring all email which contains speculation about the cause of the
Long EZ accident.  I wrote a message concerning the John Graves Long EZ
accident, which made it through the moderator, after about 50% of the
message was edited out.  I then wrote to the moderator and politely
suggested it was counterproductive to not allow us to talk about the
potential causes of fatal accidents in our airplanes.

I have included the full text of my original message below.  If you are
offended by "speculation", hit the delete button now.
Dewey Davis

Original Message:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-canard-aviators@betaweb.com
> [mailto:owner-canard-aviators@betaweb.com]On Behalf Of Fink, Allen L
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 10:54 PM
> To: 'Canard Aviators'
> Cc: Fink, Allen L
> Subject: [c-a] LESSONS LEARNED FROM JOHN GRAVES ACCIDENT
>
>
> I suspect that a beautiful day in Virginia, a beautiful piece of
> countryside, two ATP's in a seasoned LEZ with the engine purring led
> John to an "edge of the envelope condition" that exposed a "unique
> characteristic" in that particular aircraft.

I have also been thinking a lot about this accident too.  It bothered me
more than most, for some of the same reasons you mentioned (e.g., John was
an excellent pilot, and there was nothing obviously wrong with the
airplane).  But, I wouldn't assume that it was a "quirk" in the airplane
that went undiscovered.

I rode in the back of John's Long EZ a couple of weeks before the accident.
The control system seemed fine to me as I put the airplane through several
steep turns and so forth.    We actually talked about the control system
that day.  He was unsatisfied with the slop in it (it did have more than
most EZs), but it was smooth and the airplane was very responsive. He was
considering some new bearings in the control system.

Also, John did frequently fly the airplane in some stressful maneuvers
(e.g., loops). It seems very unlikely to me that the airplane had some kind
of latent quirk that only showed up as he pushed the envelope on the day of
the accident.  I'll concede that it is possible, but I believe it is far
more likely that something different went wrong on that day.

My own speculation, is that one of three things happened.
1) the control system locked because of aileron binding against the wing
under high G.
2) The control system locked because of something falling from the back seat
into the stick hole.
3) The rear seat passenger's leg interfered with the range of stick motion.

I once test flew another builder's airplane that had the problem #1 above.
He had flown it for only a few hours and he had not noticed it.  I must have
put it through a little more G loading than he had ever done, because I was
able to get the stick to lock in a turn.  Fortunately it didn't stay locked
when I released elevator pressure.  When I got it back to the ground, we
lifted the airplane by the winglet and duplicated the problem there.  All it
needed was a little more clearance between the aileron and wing on that
side.  But I don't think this could be John's problem because he had
thoroughly wrung out the airplane under high G, many times before.

The second problem has been know to happen due to loose seat belts and other
paraphernalia from the back seat falling through the hole in the armrest for
the rear stick.  I don't think this one is very likely either, because John
had a rear seat passenger, so the seat belt was in use, and there was no
baggage in the rear seat.

The third problem is the one I think is most likely, and this is why I think
so.  Imagine this scenario.  They are flying over the Rappahanock river and
decide the go low for a better view.  They are flying low and following the
twists and turns of the river below.  The rear seat passenger naturally
tenses up, and swells up as they get closer to the ground, as passengers
tend to do under these situations.  A steep turn is made to the right to
follow a bend in the river, but during the roll back left to neutral, the
passenger's leg is interfering with the rear stick.  At that speed and
altitude, there isn't even time to complain about it and John is in big
trouble with the trees surrounding the river.

When I rode in the back of John's Long EZ, I had to consciously move my
knees to the left to keep his range of control free.  We talked about it as
he prepared for takeoff.  I don't know if there was anything unusual about
his airplane but there seemed to be less room than I remember in other Long
EZs.  Did his retractable mains mod result in any changes for the rear seat
passenger?

In any case, I offer this speculation because I don't think the NTSB will
ever be able to determine the cause of the accident if it is either problem
2 or 3 above, and maybe not 1 either.

I only knew John a short time, but I certainly agree he was a great guy to
be around, and he was a very good pilot.  I don't really think there was a
"unique characteristic" lurking in the airplane though.  This seems more
like a case of interference in the control system that could have a very
simple cause.  Unfortunately, where he was flying left no margin for error.

Dewey Davis




From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:35:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject: RE: COZY: Aviators-Life and Death

Was said <the moderator is censoring all email which contains speculation>

I do not believe this is the moderator's authority to censor this information!

1: I wasn't even aware this happened, and likely would have been interested in a possible friend's demise
2: A healthly discussion of circumstances, even though speculation (and noted as such) may prevent someone elses demise. 

From: "JStricker" <jstricke@russellks.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Aviators-Life and Death
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 11:39:27 -0600

Seems like we've been here before, but I'll jump on it again because I think
it's something that's important.

IMHO, this is MARC'S LIST.  Period.  I don't ever remember him censoring
anything, but he has on occasion jumped in and said "enough was enough" on
the Aerocad/Cozy issue.  That's certainly his prerogative.  And if Marc says
"We're not talking about this on the Cozy list anymore" then that, as they
say, is that as far as I'm concerned.

He can, whenever he feels like it, stop the list if he wants to.  I'm
grateful that he doesn't and that it is administered as fairly and openly as
it is.  Thanks Marc.

If someone doesn't like the way it's run, they can drop off and/or start
their own.  I'm sure with Marc's blessing.  If they want to stay here, they
do what the list owner wants them to.  If you come to my house, you abide by
the rules of my house.  If you don't want to, the road is just right outside
and don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

The censorship referred to was on the canard aviators list and it is clearly
moderated.  Some lists and newsgroups are moderated just by not allowing
items to be posted, others are done by, yes, censorship.  I almost never
post (but I subscribe and read) the c-a list because I don't like the idea
of them cutting pieces out of a post.  A post should either appear
completely or they just don't allow it to be sent, IMHO.  But there is a lot
of good info on the list, so I read it.

That said though, the c-a list is someone else's house, and THEY can run
their list however they want.  If someone doesn't like the way they run it,
start your own.  But I, for one, get tired of hearing people say "YOU CAN'T
DO THAT!!" and whining about it.

It's their house, and they can do what they want in it.  Don't like it,
leave.

JMHO

John Stricker

jstricke@russellks.net

"I didn't spend all these years getting to the top of the food chain just to
be a vegetarian"
----- Original Message -----
From: <cdenk@ix.netcom.com>
To: <dldavis@erols.com>; <cozy_builders@canard.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 1999 7:35 AM
Subject: RE: COZY: Aviators-Life and Death


> Was said <the moderator is censoring all email which contains speculation>
>
> I do not believe this is the moderator's authority to censor this
information!
>
> 1: I wasn't even aware this happened, and likely would have been
interested in a possible friend's demise
> 2: A healthly discussion of circumstances, even though speculation (and
noted as such) may prevent someone elses demise.
>

Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 13:06:01 -0500
From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" <marcz@ultranet.com>
Subject: Fwd: RE: COZY: Aviators-Life and Death

Carl Denk wrote:

>Was said <the moderator is censoring all email which contains speculation>
>
>I do not believe this is the moderator's authority to censor this information!

Let's just make one thing clear - THERE ARE TWO MAILING LISTS BEING
DISCUSSED HERE!  The first one (that Dewey was referring to regarding
moderator omissions) is the "Canard Aviator's" mailing list.  The second
one is this one - the COZY mailing list.

The Canard Aviators list is a moderated list, meaning that someone vets
each message and decides whether it gets through, and sometimes edits them
(as was apparently done to Dewey's list).  Let me make it absolutely clear
that THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH DOING THAT.  It's neither illegal,
immoral, or unnatural.  It's just another form of list, and the canard
aviators list makes it absolutely clear when you join that that's how it
works.  The list belongs to the people that run it, and they can do as they
like.  They like to minimize speculation, nastiness, and controversy, and
that is their right.

However, I run this list differently, and have no problem with Dewey's
message, or anyone's response to it.  I don't "vet" messages, I don't edit
messages, and I don't see them before anyone else does.

>1: I wasn't even aware this happened, and likely would have been interested 
>in a possible friend's demise
>2: A healthly discussion of circumstances, even though speculation (and 
>noted as such) may prevent someone elses demise. 

I agree, which is why there is NO MODERATION of the COZY list.  You send
it, everyone sees it, no matter what.

Hope this clears up some possible confusion.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin           mailto:marcz@ultranet.com
                          http://www.ultranet.com/~marcz/

Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 15:50:10 -0500
From: James Russell <fshort@flash.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: COZY: Aviators-Life and Death

>
>I agree, which is why there is NO MODERATION of the COZY list.  You send
>it, everyone sees it, no matter what.
>
>Hope this clears up some possible confusion.
>
  Hi Marc;

	I'm glad you said that - especially about possible 
safety-of-flight issues....
But,  bad judgement,  pushing weather,  and running out of gas still 
kill most people. We
just had a Warrior dead-stick into a field 1 mile from the airport 
due to no gas - the
pilot's comments to the cameras:  " I don't know why we ran out - we 
always made it before."!

Regards,
James

From: Jim Hocut <jhocut@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Aviators-Life and Death
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 01:42:23 -0500



>   More pilots are killed on the way to and from the airport than
>   flying ---

Unfortunately that's just not true in the case of general aviation. 
 Studies by the NTSB and AOPA's Air Safety Foundation have shown 
general aviation to be several times riskier than driving an auto. 
  Most general aviation accidents, however, are preventable by good 
planning, using good judgement, taking care of your equipment, and 
not showing off.  As Jesse Ventura said, "you can't legislate 
stupidity".


Jim Hocut
jhocut@mindspring.com



Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 10:14:00 -0600
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: COZY: Dumb,Dumber....



    I wasn't going to tell anyone about this experience except my wife,
but after thinking about it over night decided there's something to be
learned and it should be shared with other canard aviators and builders.

    I was distracted by a Cessna 150 during an approach yesterday and
landed with the nose gear up and locked.

    Yes, the gear warning system was working.  But the audio warning was
not heard due to a noise cancel headset and I missed the red light.  I
also forgot a landing check list with just 3 items on it.  So much for
attention span.....the Cessna did clear the runway in time.

    Lesson learned - install a warning device with an audio input to the
interphone system.  ACS has 'em on page 417.  I'll be ordering one
today.  Also, when distracted by ANYTHING, a red flag should go up with
a self installed head tape that says, "What am I forgetting!"  This is
especially so when flying around alone without a wife or co-pilot to
keep one out of trouble.

    Damage to the airplane was almost a non event.  The snubber, which
was St. Louis Blues hockey puck, is gone as is some paint, primer and
fill.  The snubber will be replaced with something a bit more firm and
hopefully not used again.

    It's been said "there are those who have and those who will" and
after some 400 landings in a LEZ and the Cozy, I move from the later to
the former.  Say it ain't so, but it is.

dd





From: "John Slade" <rjslade@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Dumb,Dumber....
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 20:48:26 -0500

Was said
>If you ever run out of runway, retracting the nose gear will help you
>stop in a hurry with hardly any damage to the airplane. This is a safety
>feature!


Also, I hear it on good authority [Steve Wright] that you can raise the
electric nose lift gear while sliding along on your "puck". Think of the
gear as a REALLY powerful adjustable braking device. Better that a chute!
Also handy if you want to dispense with the runway and land right on the
ramp.  Seriously though - this might be real useful if you have to land in a
parking lot or on a road someday.
John Slade

PS - Thanks, David, for sharing. Many would have kept quiet.

From: alwick@juno.com
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:36:34 -0800
Subject: Re: COZY: Dumb,Dumber....

On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 10:14:00 -0600 David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
writes:
>     I was distracted by a Cessna 150 during an approach yesterday and
> landed with the nose gear up and locked.

The sad thing is that others are going to read of your experience and
just blow it off. Or arrive at the conclusion that visual and audio
warnings don't work.
It's the details of your warning sys that makes the difference. Visual
warnings can't be subtle. They must be profound. Audio warnings must be
meaningful. If you hear audio only once in your flying career, that's a
good sys. If it goes off all the time, you'll be more likely to tune out.
It's the DETAILS of the sys.
Any of us who conclude "I must be more attentive", are setting themselves
up for failure. Unfortunately, the failures are so infrequent that we
don't realize that the system in inadequate. So we don't learn the
DETAILS.

Sorry for preaching, but this happens to be my area of expertise. I've
probably done more experimenting with solutions to these types of
problems than most.

Sure appreciate your sharing Dave. Hopefully we all recognize that this
lesson you experienced also applies to flight critical systems.


-al wick
Now wiring in my limit switches and other sensors. Man this is fun!
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 17:24:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Dumb,Dumber....

Was said <audio warning was >

not heard due to a noise cancel headset>
I have the BOse noise canceling and don't have any problem hearing - The Sonalert is located just behind my right shoulder on 
the horizontal surface. Might be the frequency of the sound, noise canceling works most effective at low frequencies, maybe 
need higher frequency.
 
missed the red light
I have a large red LED, and a small green LED just under the instrument panel cover, above the top stiffener channel, straight 
ahead of my eyes. There are 2 separate micro switched to control.

audio input to the interphone system
Originally had audio into the intercom, took it out after about 3 hours of the test flying. It would come blaring on, just as 
something important was coming in on the com radio. DIsconnected it, and haven't ever wanted it back, and it would be easy to 
plug the connector back in.

And yes, I have done the dumb deed too. Then I added the big red LED and extra switch. My system has a 20 second silence on 
the audio warning, BUT find one of the better procedures, is don't use it if landing from this low power setting, lower the 
gear instead. I prefer maintaining cruise speed as long a possible, drop the gear when power is cut back, and leave it down 
while it helps slow up.


From: "Nat Puffer" <cozy@extremezone.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Dumb,Dumber....
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 17:05:16 -0600

Builders,

----------
> From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
> To: david010@earthlink.net; cozy_builders@canard.com;
canard-aviators@canard.com
> Subject: Re: COZY: Dumb,Dumber....
> 
According to Burt Rutan, sooner or later, if you have retractable gear, you
will land gear up. Thank God we only have a retractable nose gear. 
Regards,
Nat
PS: If you ever run out of runway, retracting the nose gear will help you
stop in a hurry with hardly any damage to the airplane. This is a safety
feature!

From: "DL Davis" <dldavis@erols.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Dumb,Dumber....
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 04:45:12 -0500

You are not alone.  There are plenty of nose gear-up landings amoung our EZ
flying community.  I once added up the number of safeguards in COZY design
and found that you have 4 good chances to avoid the gear-up landing.
1) the nose wheel window for visual check
2) the gear-position indicator lights on the panel
3) the warning horn
4) the warning light after the horn has been defeated.


Yet this doesn't seem to be enough, because there is a fairly high
percentage of "those who have".  It happens all the time, it seems.

I had a close call once.  In my case, the warning horn had sounded, but I
had defeated it.  The problem, fundamentally, is that throttle position is
not really a good indicator that the nose gear should be down.  Whenever I
back off the throttle, but I am not ready to land (say for maneuvering for
formation flying), I'll just defeat the horn.  This gets to be such a habit
that it is almost automatic... hear the horn.. defeat the horn.  As a
result, sometimes I would defeat the horn when I shouldn't, and I didn't
catch the nose gear until I was on short final doing the visual check.  I
knew it was only a matter of time until I forgot it and would have the
gear-up landing.

So I added one more circuit in my warning system.  Whenever the landing
brake is deployed, the horn is undefeated, and cannot be silenced by the
defeat button on the stick.  In the 7 years I have been flying, this "last
chance" warning has saved me at least twice.  When I am on final and that
ear-splitting noise just won't go away, it gets your attention.  I recommend
the mod to the warning system.

Dewey Davis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com
> [mailto:owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com]On Behalf Of David Domeier
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 11:14 AM
> To: cozy_builders@canard.com; Canard mail list
> Subject: COZY: Dumb,Dumber....
>
>
>
>
>     It's been said "there are those who have and those who will" and
> after some 400 landings in a LEZ and the Cozy, I move from the later to
> the former.  Say it ain't so, but it is.
>
> dd
>
>
>
>
>

Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 18:00:05 -0500
From: "L. Wayne Hicks" <lwhicks@erols.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Dumb,Dumber....

PS: If you ever run out of runway, retracting the nose gear will help
you
> stop in a hurry with hardly any damage to the airplane. This is a safety
> feature!

-------> Unless you have a nose-lift, then you'll wait 30 seconds for
the safety feature to kick in :-)

Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 21:45:21 -0600
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: COZY: Nose sled....

Nat,

    RE "If you ever run out of runway, retracting the nose gear will
help you
stop in a hurry with hardly any damage to the airplane. This is a safety

feature!"

    It slid to a stop mighty quick but not before I steered it off the
runway onto a taxi way.  By the time I cleared the runway, the gear
switch was down and the Steve Wright actuator was raising the nose.  I
don't think it was down more than 30 seconds and I don't think anyone
saw it.  Anyway, I was taxiing like nothing happened in no time, and if
anyone did see it, they are scratching their heads for sure.  The Cessna
guy did not see it as he was on the parallel going back for another take
off.

    I was able to get the hangar temp up to 63F this afternoon and with
the help of my trusty old epoxy oven at 90 and 2 halogen lights, the
cosmetic damage was repaired.  The area repaired was pear shaped from
front to aft about 9 inches long and 8 inches wide at the widest.  I
laid up 3 plies of bid and 2 plies of uni, and then a beveled piece of
.75" oak flooring material and bid over it to replace the hockey puck.
I considered some sort of a metal skid but decided it probably would get
so hot it might cause a fire.  The wood or rubber will grind down to
nothing and not get nearly as hot, and hopefully the airplane will be
stopped by then.

    Fill, prime, and paint will wait 'til spring.  (you have to get down
on your knees to really see it)  Meanwhile the airplane is repaired and
will fly tomorrow weather permitting.  It is a very neat feature about
composite construction - one can repair just about anything in no time
without much ado.

    Carl Denk makes a good point about an aural warning.  But I think I
will try the system wired into the interphone.  I really will not mind
getting blasted if the gear is up.  I talked with some friends in a
local avionics shop and they are installing these things in local
corporate airplanes from time to time.  I'm not sure a shoulder mounted
horn will get my attention unless it is an ambulance siren.  The Pilot
headset I have almost makes the engine noise go away, it is so
effective.  And besides that, I don't hear the high tones much anyore.
My wife says I don't hear much of anything somedays....

dd





From: "Wilhelmson, Jack" <Wilhelmson@scra.org>
Subject: COZY: RE: [c-a] Dumb,Dumber....
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 22:38:19 -0500 

David:

The most damage in a Canard gear up landing is to your ego. Mine took
A reduction and I swore that it would never happen again. However, I know
that
I am kidding myself, as is anyone else who says it can't happen to them.
That is why I
Developed a simple airspeed detection system that lowers the gear at 90
knots if I forget.

I hear airline and corporate pilots say that they are too professional for
this type of thing
to happen to them. Most of them forget that they have two pilots to help
with the work load.

You have joined the club of those that have, and you have some very good
company.

Best Regards

Jack Wilhelmson N711CZ

Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 22:17:52 -0600
From: David Domeier <david010@earthlink.net>
Subject: COZY: Gear up Follow up


    Canard Aviators have acknowledged no less than 14 gear up landings
in response to the post on the subject.  Certainly, there have been many
more.  Fortunately, our airplanes take the abuse quite well but
obviously it is a problem that has been around since day one of canard
aviation.

    We have a wealth of good ideas on how to cut the rate at which this
is happening.  The messages posted by Dewey Davis, Carl Denk, Al Wick
and Jack Wilhelmson are worth reading and saving.

dd

PS. I flew the airplane today and all went well.  I did remember to
lower the gear!!

From: SWrightFLY@aol.com
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 08:46:51 EST
Subject: Re: COZY: Dumb,Dumber....

In a message dated 12/2/99 5:08:27 PM Central Standard Time, 
lwhicks@erols.com writes:

<< Unless you have a nose-lift, then you'll wait 30 seconds for
 the safety feature to kick in :-) >>
No............ as all you need is the "foot" to contact the runway......This 
theory has been tested by a customer and it worked.........He knew seconds 
after touchdown he could not stop so he hit the nose lift switch and pushed 
hard on the breaks.........as the foot contacted the pavement he said it felt 
like an arrestor hook.........(former Navy pilot) The nose never touched the 
runway so all he needed is a new "foot"...........He said "you would not 
believe the looks on the faces of the folks standing on the ramp" as he 
explained he was only practicing "canard short field landing techniques".!!!!
Steve
Wright Aircraft Works LLC

From: "Nat Puffer" <cozy@extremezone.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Gear up Follow up
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 08:24:53 -0600

Steve,
OK. I will fess up. I had an alternator field wire fatigue and break at the
terminal because it wasn't well enough supported and I had SOLDERED the
terminal (2 mistakes). I waited until I got to Austin (3rd mistake) to try
to lower the gear. My battery voltage was down to 9 volts, which was enough
to transmit and receive the tower, but not enough to lower the gear. So I
got out my trusty ratchet with a 12 point socket (4th mistake) to lower the
gear while Shirley flew. I could only get it down about 1/4th the way
before the socket stripped. So I told the tower I was coming is without a
nose gear down. They gave me a cross-wind runway, because a Mooney had
landed on the active runway wheels up a couple hours before. When we came
in, they had a crash truck, and ambulance, a highway patrol, and about 25
firefighters. The landing was uneventful, except the sparks really flew
when Steve's foot scraped along the concrete. We stopped in about 50 ft.
While all the people were trying to decide what to tell me to do, I picked
up the nose, pushed  the airplane onto the nearest taxi-way, got out a 6
point socket, and set it on the nose gear. This was a late saturday
afternoon. The only maintenance man was elsewhere working on the Mooney. I
dropped the lower cowling, discovered the problem, crimped on a new
terminal with my needlenose, fueled up, got a jump start (boy, did the
battery ever charge for the first couple of minutes), and we took off for
Florida. When we stopped at Kissimmee, there was this guy with a Cessna who
had left his battery switch on overnight and his battery was drained. I
told him all he needed was a jump start, and it would charge up while he
was flying. Instead, he had a maintenance man remove the battery and put it
on a charger overnight, and he had to find a place to stay. By the way,
mine was the B & C  25 AH gas combinant battery that lasted me 7 years,
even though it had been drained at least 4 times. It never failed. I just
decided it was time to replace it.
Incidently, the FAA wanted me to report this as an accident. I said no.
Then they wanted me to report it as an incident. I read them the definition
of an incident, and said no. I told them this airplane was designed to land
this way in an emergency. The FAA settled on an "occurence", but insisted
that I send them a page from my log book that I had repaired the wire and
supported it.
The rule is that if 3 things go wrong, you are in trouble.
Safe flying.
Nat

----------
> From: SWrightFLY@aol.com
> To: david010@earthlink.net; canard-aviators@canard.com;
cozy_builders@canard.com
> Subject: Re: COZY: Gear up Follow up
> Date: Friday, December 03, 1999 7:21 AM
> 
> In a message dated 12/2/99 10:19:34 PM Central Standard Time, 
> david010@earthlink.net writes:
> 
> << Certainly, there have been many
>  more.  Fortunately, our airplanes take the abuse quite well >>
> Yep........I have had 2 but I will never admitt it..........Come-on 
> Nat......fess-up.
> Steve
> Wright Aircraft Works LLC
> 

