X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:32:36 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp164.iad.emailsrvr.com ([207.97.245.164] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.5) with ESMTPS id 3040349 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:33:27 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.97.245.164; envelope-from=marknlisa@hometel.com Received: from relay6.relay.iad.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay6.relay.iad.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A01E477F816 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:32:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hometel.com (webmail12.webmail.iad.mlsrvr.com [192.168.1.33]) by relay6.relay.iad.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 2019477F945 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:32:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by webmail.hometel.com (Authenticated sender: marknlisa@hometel.com, from: marknlisa@hometel.com) with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:32:36 -0500 (CDT) X-Original-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:32:36 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: 51% Rule, the FAA From: marknlisa@hometel.com X-Original-To: "Lancair List" Reply-To: marknlisa@hometel.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative;boundary="----=_20080724093236_51704" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Type: html X-Original-Message-ID: <40873.192.168.1.35.1216909956.webmail@192.168.1.35> X-Mailer: webmail6.7 ------=_20080724093236_51704 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A Jim,=0A=0AComments such as, "The FAA is very generous ... in allowing u= s to build airplanes..." and "...the FAA could make that much more problema= tic..." are at the heart of this discussion. We, as a society, have grown s= o 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.=0A=0AThe Gov't tells us we mus= t wear helmets when riding motorcycles, and we must wear seatbelts when dri= ving our cars. Why? Certainly not to protect other drivers. And certainly n= ot to reduce the load on society to pay for medical bills. A rider NOT wear= ing 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 r= ash you're almost certain to get if you have an accident riding your motorc= ycle wearing a helmet with shorts, a tank top and flip flops. The only conc= lusion I can reach is because the Gov't thinks we're too stupid to make int= elligent decisions regarding our own personal safety -- and we seem to be f= ine with that...=0A=0AObviously, there needs to be some protections in plac= e to prevent airplanes falling on hapless innocents -- and there is. It's c= alled a civil lawsuit. You drop a plane on me, I can sue you. Why does the = Gov't need to be involved?=0A=0AThe FAA "demands" a certain level of "safet= y" 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 certifica= tion process?=0A=0ADon't get me wrong, I believe the FAA DOES serve a usefu= l 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 suggest= ions on best practices. It's when those recommendations and suggestions bec= ome written in stone I get agitated. I've never seen ANY rule or law (inclu= ding 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 an= d let me do. If I screw up and kill myself it's my problem. If I hurt someo= ne else, they have all the resources of the civil courts at their disposal = to seek relief if I don't make things right.=0A=0AI wonder what state aviat= ion would be in today if Orville and Wilbur had to deal with the FAA...=0A= =0ARegards,=0A=0A Mark =0A=0AOriginal message:=0A=0AFrom: Jim Nordin [mailt= o:panelmaker@earthlink.net] =0ASent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9:29 PM=0ATo:= lml@lancaironline.net=0ASubject: 51% Rule, the FAA=0A=0AJohn, you point ou= t (wish) that the FAA should get out of everything that isn=E2=80=99t =E2= =80=9CCertified=E2=80=9D. Well the plane you built is =E2=80=9Ccertified=E2= =80=9D if you had it inspected. It=E2=80=99s 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 woul= d challenge the guy at the wheel to the point of destruction. A strict defi= nition of who built what or percentages would strangle the homebuilder to t= he 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 s= ame as standard category airplanes. It=E2=80=99s too bad you don=E2=80=99t = want the feds telling you that you can=E2=80=99t do something because you d= idn=E2=80=99t measure up to the regs. I don=E2=80=99t want you flying thing= s that don=E2=80=99t measure up. The regs are there to protect us not to in= hibit us. Naive? Hardly. I=E2=80=99ve built airplanes and know the complex= ity and truly appreciate the rules and regs for what they allow us to do. Y= ou want to jump off a hill with a sheet for a wing (your example)=E2=80=A6 = the FAA has no problem with that =E2=80=A6 go for it. That=E2=80=99s a hell= of a lot different than flying a 3,000 pound 300mph machine over populated= areas at night in IMC =E2=80=A6 the FAA could make that much more problema= tic. They could make it impossible to fly VMC in a 60hp single passenger ma= chine you built when flying over the unpopulated desert only on Saturday mo= rnings when the bp is above 30=E2=80=9D! The FAA could just do away with th= e option altogether. All this said I would not discourage you to wish all y= ou want. Give a good shot at abiding by the rules too, poorly written as th= ey may be. Take them seriously for they are constructive and well meaning.= =0A=0AJim=0A ------=_20080724093236_51704 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 Jim,=0A

Comments such as, "The FAA is very generous ... in allowing= us to build airplanes..." and "...the FAA could make that much more proble= matic..." 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 d= on't even notice (or worse, we DO notice, but don't care) when a non-electe= d body of bureaucrats takes away our freedoms.

=0A

The Gov't tells us we must wear helmets when riding motorcycles, and we m= ust wear seatbelts when driving our cars. Why? Certainly not to protect oth= er drivers. And certainly not to reduce the load on society to pay for medi= cal bills. A rider NOT wearing a helmet is much more likely to die in a cra= sh. 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 an= d flip flops. The only conclusion I can reach is because the Gov't thi= nks we're too stupid to make intelligent decisions regarding our own person= al safety -- and we seem to be fine with that...

=0A

Obviously, there needs to be some protections in place to prevent airpl= anes falling on hapless innocents -- and there is. It's called a civil laws= uit. You drop a plane on me, I can sue you. Why does the Gov't need to be i= nvolved?

=0A

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 f= or the court's, the public's or even the Gov't's confidence in th= e FAA's certification process?

=0A

Don't get me w= rong, I believe the FAA DOES serve a useful purpose, up to a point. That po= int is when a good suggestion becomes law. I have no problem with the FAA m= aking informed recommendations and suggestions on best practices. It's when= those recommendations and suggestions become written in stone I get agitat= ed. I've never seen ANY rule or law (including the Ten Commandments) that a= pplies in EVERY situation. Tell me how and why you think I should do t= hings a certain way, then get out of the way and let me do. If I screw up a= nd kill myself it's my problem. If I hurt someone else, they have all the r= esources of the civil courts at their disposal to seek relief if I don't ma= ke things right.

=0A

I wonder what state aviation= would be in today if Orville and Wilbur had to deal with the FAA...

=0A=

Regards,

=0A

<= o:p> Mark

=0A

Original message:

= =0A

From: Jim Nordin [ma= ilto:panelmaker@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9:29 PMTo: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: 51% Rule, the FAA

= =0A

John, you point out (wish) that the FAA s= hould get out of everything that isn=E2=80=99t =E2=80=9CCertified=E2=80=9D.= Well the plane you built is =E2=80=9Ccertified=E2=80=9D if you had it insp= ected. It=E2=80=99s 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 th= e 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 requir= ed to have certifications to build airplanes the same as standard category = airplanes. It=E2=80=99s too bad you don=E2=80=99t want the feds telling you= that you can=E2=80=99t do something because you didn=E2=80=99t measure up = to the regs. I don=E2=80=99t want you flying things that don=E2=80=99t meas= ure up. The regs are there to protect us not to inhibit us.  Naive? Ha= rdly. I=E2=80=99ve built airplanes and know the complexity and truly apprec= iate 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)=E2=80=A6 the FAA has no probl= em with that =E2=80=A6 go for it. That=E2=80=99s a hell of a lot different = than flying a 3,000 pound 300mph machine over populated areas at night in I= MC =E2=80=A6 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 i= s above 30=E2=80=9D! 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.

=0A

Jim

------=_20080724093236_51704--