Mark,

I have no problem with safety per se, but I object to anyone trying to
suggest that in order to "survive" my "hobby" I need to write a Dash 1 for
my experimental airplane and then also write up a book of regulations under
which I'll operate it.

One reason I have an experimental airplane is because of the increased
freedom that I am allowed in it's operation. I don't need more formalized
limitations.

I have zero interest in going to my insurance company and telling them that
I don't think the limitations they have already put on my airplane
operations are strict enough and I'm going to increase the limitations, in
writing.

At the same time, if that is what makes it work for you, more power to you,
for you. I don't need a book to tell me to not fly in known icing
conditions, or not to joust with Thor, or to try and see how far I can
stretch the fuel.

Lynn Farnsworth
Super Legacy L2K-235
TSIO-550
Race #44


" Safety is a culture I learned (lived, breathed,
had crammed down my throat) during a 20-year USAF career -- sometimes it
drives my wife crazy!


Another big advantage (in my opinion) is a formalized set of rules.  Many
decisions (of the type that seem to get our Lancair bretheren in trouble)
are already made for the pros.  Weather conditions and equipment
requirements are clearly defined in company flight manuals.

 I've often wondered if a mutually beneficial "deal" can be
made with insurers that would allow reduced insurance rates for those who
commit to formalized sim training.  Make your insurability contingent on
successful completion of training.  The pros do it, why can't we?  And while
it may be true the training might cost us more than the insurance, no one
can argue the relative values."