Message-ID: <01c201c11d6a$4ee42d00$0d07b718@MDSN1.WI.HOME.COM>
From: "Stu Seffern" <sseffern@Chorus.net>
To: <lancair.list@olsusa.com>
References: <70.df046f7.289da7d2@aol.com>
Subject: (Free) flight
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 23:51:36 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
O.K. , last I checked we still live in a relatively "free" society.  Free
societies are not considered necessarily "safe" societies.  They are however,
growing, dynamic, evolving, and creative societies.

Strict government regulation does not tend to lead to a safer society in the
long run anyway.  It just prevents those with the desire and ability to
"advance the art" from doing so. Strict regulation prevents advancements to
safety as well.  Ask yourself why the biggest environmental disasters and loss
of life occur in the strictest controlled countries.  This is why the EAA
exists and thrives.  It is our loophole of freedom.  Better airplanes for the
money could be built on a production line with far better economies of scale.
The truly "moronic" opinion is that the swollen FAA, now numbering 44
bureaucrats for every airplane flying, cares more about your safety than you
do.

The outcome of this aforementioned flight was good.  A risk assessment was
done by the builder/pilot and a decision was made which turned out to be
correct.  FAR 91 requires that the airplane be grounded if the installed clock
stops functioning.  This kind of nutty over-regulation does not lend itself to
safety, just disrespect for the regulations, and creates a whole new class of
law-breakers.

If insurers were able to limit risks by eliminating the stupid, or reckless
pilots, and the Trial Lawyers Association Lobby had enough organized
opposition to enact "looser pays" rules in the law (like most other countries
of the world), and juries were truly aviation "peers" of the pilot, then
insurance rates would come way down.  Right now we need more Lancair's flying,
and more creative coverage based on a more complete risk assessment by the
underwriters.

Freedom requires responsibility,  calculated risks with greater rewards.

Stu Seffern
www.LantzairFlyers.com


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://www.olsusa.com/mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair

Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>