I sent to the list yesterday using the email address in the primary "TO" line, but it didn't make it for some reason... Can you post it for me?
MESSAGE FOLLOWS......
Jim,
Comments such as, "The FAA is very generous ... in allowing us to build airplanes..." and "...the FAA could make that much more problematic..." are at the heart of this discussion. We, as a society, have grown so comfortable allowing the Gov't "take care of" and "watch over" us, we don't even notice (or worse, we DO notice, but don't care) when a non-elected body of bureaucrats takes away our freedoms.
The Gov't tells us we must wear helmets when riding motorcycles, and we must wear seatbelts when driving our cars. Why? Certainly not to protect other drivers. And certainly not to reduce the load on society to pay for medical bills. A rider NOT wearing a helmet is much more likely to die in a crash. Funerals are much less expensive than even a short stay in the hospital recovering from the road rash you're almost certain to get if you have an accident riding your motorcycle wearing a helmet with shorts, a tank top and flip flops. The only conclusion I can reach is because the Gov't thinks we're too stupid to make intelligent decisions regarding our own personal safety -- and we seem to be fine with that...
Obviously, there needs to be some protections in place to prevent airplanes falling on hapless innocents -- and there is. It's called a civil lawsuit. You drop a plane on me, I can sue you. Why does the Gov't need to be involved?
The FAA "demands" a certain level of "safety" from certified aircraft builders, yet meeting those certification levels provides NO protection from product liability. What does that say for the court's, the public's or even the Gov't's confidence in the FAA's certification process?
Don't get me wrong, I believe the FAA DOES serve a useful purpose, up to a point. That point is when a good suggestion becomes law. I have no problem with the FAA making informed recommendations and suggestions on best practices. It's when those recommendations and suggestions become written in stone I get agitated. I've never seen ANY rule or law (including the Ten Commandments) that applies in EVERY situation. Tell me how and why you think I should do things a certain way, then get out of the way and let me do. If I screw up and kill myself it's my problem. If I hurt someone else, they have all the resources of the civil courts at their disposal to seek relief if I don't make things right.
I wonder what state aviation would be in today if Orville and Wilbur had to deal with the FAA...
Regards,
Mark
Original message:
From: Jim Nordin [mailto:panelmaker@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9:29 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: 51% Rule, the FAA
John, you point out (wish) that the FAA should get out of everything that isn’t “Certified”. Well the plane you built is “certified” if you had it inspected. It’s in the Experimental category, Amateur built. The FAA is very generous (with the dedicated help of the EAA) in allowing us to build airplanes that have the capability of flying 300 mph, over heavy populated areas, in IMC, and the other conditions that would challenge the guy at the wheel to the point of destruction. A strict definition of who built what or percentages would strangle the homebuilder to the point you would not be able to build a plane in your garage or anywhere else. You would be required to have certifications to build airplanes the same as standard category airplanes. It’s too bad you don’t want the feds telling you that you can’t do something because you didn’t measure up to the regs. I don’t want you flying things that don’t measure up. The regs are there to protect us not to inhibit us. Naive? Hardly. I’ve built airplanes and know the complexity and truly appreciate the rules and regs for what they allow us to do. You want to jump off a hill with a sheet for a wing (your example)… the FAA has no problem with that … go for it. That’s a hell of a lot different than flying a 3,000 pound 300mph machine over populated areas at night in IMC … the FAA could make that much more problematic. They could make it impossible to fly VMC in a 60hp single passenger machine you built when flying over the unpopulated desert only on Saturday mornings when the bp is above 30”! The FAA could just do away with the option altogether. All this said I would not discourage you to wish all you want. Give a good shot at abiding by the rules too, poorly written as they may be. Take them seriously for they are constructive and well meaning.
Jim