Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:56:26 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-2753705@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=63.134.207.10; envelope-from=dave@aircraftersllc.com
From: "Dave Saylor" <Dave@AirCraftersLLC.com>
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: 51% rule?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: Ach1ag8TcHF4c2AFTi+ZiEDk2twomgAKDaog
In-Reply-To: <list-2752843@logan.com>

It's pretty easy to get off track here.  For what it's worth, from the very
beginning, FAA's position at every meeting was that there was a compliance
problem, not a safety problem.  EAA presented lots of data to show that
amateur built is getting safer, not worse.  FAA said, "Yeah, we know.  Now
about the compliance problem...".

Saftey should be considered, and it should be realized that safety has been
improving in an enviornment where professional building has essentially been
allowed to take place.  But as intuitive as it seems, it is difficult to
concretely link professional building to safer airplanes.  Without anything
better to go on, FAA will solve its compliance problem the best way it knows
how.  In this case, since there was no agreement as to how to define 51%,
and thereby define what to look for, FAA will decide on its own what 51%
means.

Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Colyn
Case on earthlink
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 7:46 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: 51% rule?

so....not to get off track here or anything.....but shouldn't the issue be
how to make the planes safe?
vs. who did the work? 


--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html