X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:09:03 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web53709.mail.re2.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.30] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with SMTP id 3065062 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:16:22 -0400 Received: (qmail 66781 invoked by uid 60001); 7 Aug 2008 02:16:21 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=qFZuwfNLLg+8Ax609tIwioTaSevPuCk5NxyXpRlzXYh6xQKrY5iiFsm7QDZM5Qlx9wRYBPRW2/jlT1Fd9Xle0YJUyxXrmNqTT1TxticerPfm02WQPB08jGadsO3jg9byR8YhUZXTQXlmex2BnWm9HifnygnVxqPmoZhj1P/iNLE=; Received: from [66.32.31.102] by web53709.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 06 Aug 2008 19:16:20 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.218 X-Original-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 19:16:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Kyrilian Dyer Reply-To: kyrilian_av@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1983883498-1218075380=:66106" X-Original-Message-ID: <358083.66106.qm@web53709.mail.re2.yahoo.com> --0-1983883498-1218075380=:66106 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John, Yeah, I'd prefer it simply stay as is and be enforced.=A0 But that's easier= said than done.=A0 Unfortunately, since it's out in the open the FAA can't= reasonably ignore the issue.=A0 That would be tantamount to endorsing the = manner in which people are currently applying the regs.=A0 So they're left = with either changing the rules, or changing how the rules are enforced (or = both).=A0 Since it's hard to make subtle changes without greatly affecting = multiple parts of the regulations themselves, I think the better option is = to leave the regs alone and put more effort into enforcement.=A0 On the oth= er hand, I'm a bit worried about their intended enforcement of pilots (see = http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/bizav/1181-full.html#198538). Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any easy answers... =A0Cheers, - Kyrilian --- On Tue, 8/5/08, John Hafen wrote: From: John Hafen Subject: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 6:11 PM Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% =A0A/B Ruling Kyrilian: I appreciate your comments. What would YOU tell the FAA at this point. =A0Do you feel that further defi= ning 51% is the solution, or would that just make life for honest builders = more difficult? Would it make sense to leave the regs as they are and just enforce the curr= ent guidelines? John =0A=0A=0A --0-1983883498-1218075380=:66106 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
John,

Yeah, I'd prefer it simply stay as is and be enforced.  But that's easier said than done.  Unfortunately, since it's out in the open the FAA can't reasonably ignore the issue.  That would be tantamount to endorsing the manner in which people are currently applying the regs.  So they're left with either changing the rules, or changing how the rules are enforced (or both).  Since it's hard to make subtle changes without greatly affecting multiple parts of the regulations themselves, I think the better option is to leave the regs alone and put more effort into enforcement.  On the other hand, I'm a bit worried about their intended enforcement of pilots (see http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/bizav/1181-full.html#198538).

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any easy answers...

 Cheers,
- Kyrilian

--- On Tue, 8/5/08, John Hafen <j.hafen@comcast.net> wrote:
From: John Hafen <j.hafen@comcast.net>
Subject: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 6:11 PM

Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51%  A/B Ruling Kyrilian:

I appreciate your comments.

What would YOU tell the FAA at this point.  Do you feel that further defining 51% is the solution, or would that just make life for honest builders more difficult?

Would it make sense to leave the regs as they are and just enforce the current guidelines?

John



--0-1983883498-1218075380=:66106--