Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:47:03 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-980552@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.22.63.66; envelope-from=lorn@dynacomm.ws
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Lorn H. Olsen" <lorn@dynacomm.ws>
Subject: Re: Dead Battery

After I started the aircraft and before I took off:

1) The battery was working.
2) The battery was charging at 10 amps, just fine.
3) All instruments were working.
4) The weather was VFR.
5) There were NO detectable problems with the airplane at the time of  
takeoff.

Given the above, what regulation was violated in the departure?
Given the above, what was unsafe?

> From: VTAILJEFF@aol.com
> Date: May 31, 2005 2:08:41 PM GMT-04:00
>
> In a message dated 5/31/2005 9:08:03 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
> petervana@earthlink.net writes:
>
>> I would be curious to learn if the FAR's for experimental  
>> airplanes would have permitted Lorn's flight, and do the laws  
>> provide for the establishment of an Minimum Equipment List?  If  
>> so, has one been developed?
>
> There is no "special rule or exemption" for experimental aircraft  
> when it comes to airworthiness under Part 91.
> .
> .
--
Lorn H. 'Feathers' Olsen, MAA, DynaComm, Corp.
248-345-0500, mailto:lorn@dynacomm.ws
LNC2, O-320-D1F, 1,000 hrs, N31161, Y47, SE Michigan