X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:13:47 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp124.iad.emailsrvr.com ([207.97.245.124] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.0) with ESMTPS id 2758309 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:53:16 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.97.245.124; envelope-from=marknlisa@hometel.com Received: from relay2.r2.iad.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay2.r2.iad.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 5B56D46A5C1 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:52:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from hometel.com (webmail11.webmail.iad.mlsrvr.com [192.168.1.31]) by relay2.r2.iad.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 5592346A5B9 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:52:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by webmail.hometel.com (Authenticated sender: marknlisa@hometel.com, from: marknlisa@hometel.com) with HTTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:52:29 -0600 (CST) X-Original-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:52:29 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: 51% Rule From: marknlisa@hometel.com X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Reply-To: marknlisa@hometel.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative;boundary="----=_20080226095229_40347" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Type: 2 X-Original-Message-ID: <35213.192.168.1.71.1204041149.webmail@192.168.1.71> X-Mailer: webmail6.5.1 ------=_20080226095229_40347 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0AThis issue is NOT about flight safety, it's about fair play. Those argui= ng an airplane completed with builder's assistance is safer have allowed th= emselves to be distracted.=0A=0A =0A=0AI'll suggest an aircraft built by an= amateur MAY or MAY NOT be as safe as an FAA-blessed and certified aircraft= -- hell it could be safer (let's not get into how one would quantify that)= . We would all probably agree that SOME builder assistance in critical area= s is a GOOD THING as regards flight safety -- especially in the case of som= eone with no engineering or manufacturing background.=0A=0A =0A=0AIt's when= builder assistance morphed into builder REPLACEMENT that fair play became = the issue forcing the FAA to act. Why should Cessna, who followed all the r= ules and paid all the costs to attain FAA certification for its products ha= ve to compete with Billy Bob's Airplane Factory churning out "amateur-built= " kitplanes?=0A=0A =0A=0APersonally, I could care less whether anyone else = wants to have their kit assembled built by a "professional." That's not why= I PERSONALLY became involved in this hobby, but my motivations are not eve= ryone's. Likewise, I could care less if the FAA were no longer involved in = aircraft certification. I think the market would soon force out any company= building a substandard product, with or without FAA involvement.=0A=0A =0A= =0ABut if ONE company building airplanes for profit must pay certification = costs, then ALL must. Suggesting the business of building airplanes from ki= ts for clients should be allowed because it improves safety only diverts at= tention from the real issue; it's not fair.=0A=0A =0A=0ADiscussing the moti= vations of businesses who provided said builder's assistance is a waste of = time -- only they know why. What's important is it gave the APPEARANCE -- r= ight or wrong -- of attempting to circumvent the rules.=0A=0A =0A=0ARules r= egarding the sale of amateur-built aircraft from one individual to another = need no review as long as the rules regarding its initial construction are = observed. If a person purchases an "experimental" aircraft without due dili= gence... well, let's all remember the last half of the word is "mental," we= all have to be a little bit to get involved in this hobby!=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A= =0AAt any rate, it sounds as if the industry/government committee called to= study the situation agreed on this point; a rule-change regarding "profess= ionally-built experimental aircraft" is coming down the pike. Unfortunately= , the scrutiny of one issue (fairplay) generated further scrutiny of anothe= r -- what is 51%? Sadly, since the committee wasn't able to agree on a defi= nition, the FAA will now develop and apply its own without industry input -= - any discussion here on the LML is moot.=0A=0A =0A=0APersonally I'm surpri= sed anyone might be surprised. Bureaucracies have ever responded thus to ru= le-skirting. Anyone who grew up with brothers and/or sisters or who enjoyed= Basic Military Training as a member of the armed services recognizes the c= ycle -- someone pushes the envelope and everyone suffers.=0A=0A =0A=0ARegar= ds,=0A=0A =0A=0AMark Sletten ------=_20080226095229_40347 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This issue is NOT about flight safety,= it's about fair play. Those arguing an airplane completed with b= uilder's assistance is safer have allowed themselves to be distracted.=0A
 
=0A
I'll suggest an aircraft built by an amat= eur MAY or MAY NOT be as safe as an FAA-blessed and certified aircraft= -- hell it could be safer (let's not get into how one would quantify that)= . We would all probably agree that SOME builder assistance in critical area= s is a GOOD THING as regards flight safety -- especially in the case of som= eone with no engineering or manufacturing background.
=0A
 =0A
It's when builder assistance morphed into builder REPLACEM= ENT that fair play became the issue forcing the FAA to act. Why s= hould Cessna, who followed all the rules and paid all the costs to att= ain FAA certification for its products have to compete with Billy Bob'= s Airplane Factory churning out "amateur-built" kitplanes?
=0A
&nb= sp;
=0A
Personally, I could care less whether anyone else wants to= have their kit assembled built by a "professional." That's not why I PERSO= NALLY became involved in this hobby, but my motivations are not everyone's.= Likewise, I could care less if the FAA were no longer involved in aircraft= certification. I think the market would soon force out any company buildin= g a substandard product, with or without FAA involvement.
=0A
&nbs= p;
=0A
But if ONE company building airplanes for profit must = pay certification costs, then ALL must. Suggesting the business of bui= lding airplanes from kits for clients should be allowed beca= use it improves safety only diverts attention from the real issue= ; it's not fair.
=0A
 
=0A
Discussing the motivation= s of businesses who provided said builder's assistance is a waste of time -= - only they know why. What's important is it gave the APPEARANCE -- right o= r wrong -- of attempting to circumvent the rules.
=0A
 <= /DIV>=0A
Rules regarding the sale of amateur-built aircraft from o= ne individual to another need no review as long as the rules regarding its = initial construction are observed. If a person purchases an "experimental" = aircraft without due diligence... well, let's all remember the last half of= the word is "mental," we all have to be a little bit to get involved in th= is hobby!
=0A
 
=0A
=0A
At any rate, it sounds a= s if the industry/government committee called to study the situation agreed= on this point; a rule-change regarding "professionally-built experimental = aircraft" is coming down the pike. Unfortunately, the scrutiny of one issue= (fairplay) generated further scrutiny of another -- what is 51%? Sadl= y, since the committee wasn't able to agree on a definition, the FAA will n= ow develop and apply its own without industry input -- any discus= sion here on the LML is moot.
=0A
 
=0A
Person= ally I'm surprised anyone might be surprised. Bureaucracies have ever = responded thus to rule-skirting. Anyone who grew up with brothers and/or si= sters or who enjoyed Basic Military Training as a member of the armed = services recognizes the cycle -- someone pushes the envelope and everyone s= uffers.
=0A
 
=0A
Regards,
=0A
 
= =0A
Mark Sletten
------=_20080226095229_40347--