X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:28:05 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from ws6-4.us4.outblaze.com ([205.158.62.107] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.2) with SMTP id 847369 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:50:09 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.158.62.107; envelope-from=micah@froese.com Received: (qmail 498 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2005 01:49:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.101?) (micah@froese.com@151.213.106.245) by ws6-4.us4.outblaze.com with SMTP; 27 Nov 2005 01:49:24 -0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <43891141.9090806@froese.com> X-Original-Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:52:01 -0500 From: Micah Froese User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Op Technologies opinions? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Does this mean I should stop looking at Trutrak for my autopilot? Micah Froese > > If anything, a claim of "it is certifiable but we are not going to > certify it" would raise serious red flags. A statement of "it is in > the process of being certified" would be in only marginally better, > unless that particular team of engineers/certification-folks, under > that particular company, under that particular management, has a track > record of certifying similar products, in which case I would be > willing to give it much more credence. > > Standard disclaimers about my involvement with Chelton Flight Systems > applies. > > Regards, > > Hamid > > > >