|
|
Mark,
Unfortunately you are right. Every crash only seems to add to the cache of the Lancair mystique: real "Right Stuff". Unfortunately I can't help but think Rienk's right, but for the wrong reasons. I could care less if you want to take your life flying hot machines. However the general populace looks askance at having aircraft rain down on their heads. We experimenters presently have a very sweet deal. The way we are going sooner or later the press or public is going to wake up and ask the FAA, "Why are there uncertificated aircraft flying over our heads?" The FAA gets paid to make sure people are safe in the air, and that people on the ground are safe from flying objects. The discrepancy between certificated and experimental aircraft requirements makes a mockery of that. You can tout the superiority of your aircraft over any certificated effort until you're blue in the face. The FAA has spent the last ? years spending taxpayers money developing and servicing certificated aircraft requirements and the public's not going to be told that was all a frivolous and unnecessary waste of time and money. (They'll have help from the certificated aircraft industry, too.)
My point? It would be good for all of us if the owners of aircraft whose safety record was less than exemplary looked to the cause, and worked to improve it.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
At 03:02 AM 5/19/2006, you wrote:
This discourse reminds me of another comparison.
The advice not to mud wrestle a pig.
Because, eventually you discover, the pig likes it.
All your inflammatory arguments intended to stir controversy and generate
publicity are at our and especially Marv's expense.
Enough already.
|
|