Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:51:26 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-846038@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.68; envelope-from=hwasti@starband.net
From: "Hamid A. Wasti" <hwasti@starband.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Op Technologies opinions?
References: <list-844801@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Halle, John wrote:

>...which is IFR TSO-able,....
>
Be very very weary of something that is certifiable or TSO-able.  You 
have to be certifiably nuts in order to believe that claim.  If it is 
truly TSO-able, then why not just run the tests, TSO it and have a leg 
up over all the others?  If it is certifiable, why not certify it?

There are many many designs where the designers have designed things 
that in their best judgment meet the certification requirements, but 
that is not how things turn out when they are actually tested. 
 Sometimes it is because of a justifiable incorrect judgment call and 
sometime it is because of a lack of knowledge/experience (he does not 
know how much it is that he does not know).  Yet other times, there are 
claims that are made with the intention to deceive because anyone with 
the slightest clue would know that the product could not be certified.

If anything, a claim of "it is certifiable but we are not going to 
certify it" would raise serious red flags.  A statement of "it is in the 
process of being certified" would be in only marginally better, unless 
that particular team of engineers/certification-folks, under that 
particular company, under that particular management, has a track record 
of certifying similar products, in which case I would be willing to give 
it much more credence.

Standard disclaimers about my involvement with Chelton Flight Systems 
applies.

Regards,

Hamid