Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 21:33:40 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from osiris.email.starband.net ([148.78.247.140] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2b5) with ESMTP id 146617 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 21:25:57 -0400 Received: from starband.net (vsat-148-64-23-255.c050.t7.mrt.starband.net [148.64.23.255]) by osiris.email.starband.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5A1OliU020426 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:24:53 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <40C7B875.3000009@starband.net> X-Original-Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:25:09 -0700 From: Hamid Wasti User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Rutan tries for 100-km. suborbital flight with SpaceShipOne References: Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sky2high@aol.com wrote:

Rutan has not remained motionless because he waited for everything to be TSO'd (as if that makes things perfect) and neither will I.

If someone is incapable of critically evaluating the risks and benefits of a design or a design change, they are well advised to wait till things are TSO's, or better go with certified airplanes. There were two points to the post:

1) Even a seemingly minor and inconsequential part can have some very major repercussions if you do not think things through.

2) Even the best of the best sometimes stumble on point #1.

There have been far too many posts talking about "minor" changes with hardly a consideration for the type of failures the change could induce. This is aimed to prompt some critical thinking in these instances.

That's why we fly aircraft called experimental - amateur built. It is not that you choose to use trash, it's that you understand you are not placing "faith" in a failure free manufacturer - like Cessna for instance.

Therein lies the biggest problem with the ameture-built field. Not every builder is able to discern the difference between trash and quality or evaluate the consequences of the changes they are contemplating. There was a time, not too long ago when only those with a mechanical knack, knowledge and experience considered building. However, today's mantra is that "everyone can build an airplane" When you market kits to "everyone", "everyone" will start building them and "everyone" does not have the mechanical skills, the capability to make design changes or even know the limit of their capabilities.

There are some individuals, (Rutan and Lance as two examples) who can start with a clean sheet of paper and build themselves an airplane. Others can start with a plan or a kit and modify it to reflect their taste, meet their particular needs or even improve on the basic design. Yet others can do quite well as long as they get a kit and stick closely to the manual. Then there are those who have no business building an airplane and need to place their faith in certified manufacturer. The certified manufacturer's product will not be 100% defect free, but it will be an order of magnitude better and safer than the best thing these individuals are able to come up with. The problem is that many individuals are operating in a category above their capabilities. Darwin will see to it that they do not stay there for long, but the problem is that the rest of us are stuck paying the bill in the form of increased insurance cost, nonexistent insurance, increased regulation and social stigma of being one of the "crazy people who are nuts enough to build their own airplane" because of being associated with such individuals.

Hamid