|
|
John Hafen wrote:
Ok Hamid, I'll bite.
You obviously disagree with my statement. So I respectfully stand by to
hear your rationale.
John,
You have made a claim that commercial builders are better than amateurs. It is up to you to back up that claim by facts rather than expect others to just take you for your word for it.
Meanwhile, I'll continue to prepare my list of specific things where I felt
the commercial builder expertise was superior to mine.
That is one very narrow example of one builder's capability or lack thereof. If you feel that you personally lack the capability to safely build an airplane, then be responsible and don't. But under your proposal, there is nothing preventing a person with even less expertise and capability than you from declaring himself to be a "professional" and claiming the superior expertise that you are looking for.
How do you propose protecting the unsuspecting consumer that lacks the ability to discern good and bad workmanship from buying your product? Maybe this idiot does not deserve any protection from the nanny state and should be allowed to get themselves killed doing something stupid if they choose. But what about "the public," the unsuspecting person who was not a party to this transaction whose head the plane will come crashing down on? Even the most out there libertarian position does not claim an individual's right to harm others. Should the regs that allow "professionally built" airplanes also prevent them from flying over populated areas, flying in the IFR system or landing at busy airports? Or should the FAA monitor the "professional builders" and make sure that they meet a certain minimum standard -- they already do, they are called certified manufacturers.
Regards,
Hamid
|
|