X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:04:22 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [216.52.118.220] (HELO cluster1.echolabs.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c5) with ESMTP id 942659 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 13 May 2005 10:51:45 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.52.118.220; envelope-from=ben@gmpexpress.net X-Scanned-By: RAE MPP/Clamd http://www.messagepartners.com X-Scanned-By: RAE MPP/Cloudmark http://www.messagepartners.com Received: from [72.9.22.171] (HELO ben22d25bef6f7) by fe2.cluster1.echolabs.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with SMTP id 47477424 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 13 May 2005 10:50:59 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <000d01c557cb$2e8ff0d0$ab160948@ben22d25bef6f7> From: "Ben Baltrusaitis" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: new regs X-Original-Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 10:51:00 -0400 Organization: Biper Marketing Company MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01C557A9.A6413CF0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C557A9.A6413CF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here is a reply from an FAA man: The Notice 8700.42, is not a FAR rule and is only advisory in nature. = The notices are for information and cannot be used in any enforcement = case. Trying to enforce a Notice is like trying to enforce an Advisory = Circular they are for information only. Your phase 1 and 2 limitations are what you have to go by. Until part 61 = is changed nothing will happen. However I think all pilots should send a = comment to the FAA or your local congress person stating how you feel = about the FAA changing rules. The squeaky wheel gets greases so to = speak. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: lhenney@attg.net=20 To: Lancair Mailing List=20 Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 10:42 AM Subject: [LML] Re: new regs Bryan, Chris, Am I missing something here? Does this discussion imply that=20 homebuilders were in some way exempt from rating requirements? It=20 sounds that its water under the bridge anyway. Curious what I'm = missing? Larry Henney -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/ --=20 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.9 - Release Date: 5/12/2005 ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C557A9.A6413CF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Here is a reply from an = FAA=20 man:

The Notice 8700.42, is not a FAR rule and is only advisory = in=20 nature. The notices are for information and cannot be used in any = enforcement=20 case. Trying to enforce a Notice is like trying to enforce an Advisory = Circular=20 they are for information only.
Your phase 1 and 2 limitations are = what you=20 have to go by. Until part 61 is changed nothing will happen. However I = think all=20 pilots should send a comment to the FAA or your local congress person = stating=20 how you feel about the FAA changing rules. The squeaky wheel gets = greases so to=20 speak.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 lhenney@attg.net=20
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 = 10:42 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: new = regs

Bryan, Chris,

Am I missing something here?  = Does=20 this discussion imply that
homebuilders were in some way exempt = from=20 rating requirements?  It
sounds that its water under the = bridge=20 anyway.  Curious what I'm missing?

Larry=20 Henney


--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironli= ne.net/lists/lml/


--=20
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG=20 Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.9 - Release = Date:=20 5/12/2005

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C557A9.A6413CF0--