|
|
Thanks Hamid.
My reply to your post follows. I may or may not back up my opinions with
facts and data. As such, people may choose to agree with me or not. And if
I DO back up my statements with facts and data, they are free to question /
challenge the "facts" as well. The pronouncement that something is a "fact"
doesn't make it so.
Thinkers, should.
To your points:
If someone is intent on being an idiot, as you state below, no nanny state
can possibly apply enough protection/regulation to keep the guy from
Darwinning himself (and even others) out of the gene pool. The Cessna 172
that took off into the fog and quickly crashed into a home in Gearheart,
Oregon (killing 3 on the ground as well as a crew of two), a few days ago,
was a certified aircraft. It was built by professional builders at a
company that has been around for a long time. No amount of nannyism can
prevent such tragedies 100%. Certification does not provide ultimate
safety.
You state, "if you personally lack the capability to safely build an
airplane, then be responsible, and don't."
Too late. I'm flying and loving my IVP as we speak. Its a wonderful plane.
You state, "there is nothing preventing a person with even less expertise
and capability than you from declaring himself to be a professional..."
I agree with you. People can, do, and will say anything. I would hope that
intelligent erstwhile builder would exercise caution and do "due diligence"
before taking plane building assistance from just anyone. Just as you do
due diligence before investing in a company.
You ask, "How do you propose protecting the unsuspecting consumer that lacks
the ability to discern good and bad workmanship from buying your product?"
I don't propose to protect every unsuspecting consumer from everything. Nor
do I propose that people rely on the FAA to do it for them (especially in
the experimental market). I expect people to use their own brains and
protect themselves. I expect them to exercise caution, to be skeptical, ask
questions, and make decisions accordingly. Especially, again, in the area
of Experimental aircraft. I would also expect the same skepticism (tire
kicking, log book evaluation, test flight) if someone were to buy a used
certified aircraft.
You say, "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."
I oppose nanny state tyranny. Personally, I'd prefer to NOT be "protected"
by a nanny state. I prefer to protect myself.
You say, "Even the most out there libertarian position does not claim an
individual's right to harm others."
I don't recall claiming any right to hurt others.
The "professionals" I have worked with have been nothing short of
exceptional in their knowledge of engine configuration and set-ups, proper
torque for engine and propeller mounting, identifying that a "wrong" prop
governor had been installed during a factory engine fastbuild, placement and
hook up of avionics brain boxes and trouble shooting when I lost my Chelton
airspeed and altitude (no air data) just after takeoff on my first solo
flight, prop balancing, electric flap systems, air conditioning, heated wing
systems, re-giging the pressure door such that all latches go over-center,
rather than just some of them, finding and sealing pressurization leak
spots, starting over on my Boeing wing tips such that the trailing edge
actually aligns with the ailerons and flaps, carving just the right amount
off of the inside center of the elevator so it doesn't conflict with a fully
deflected rudder, installing a fire blanket in the nose gear well.....etc.
I could go on, but I think I'm out of words for the day.
Respectfully,
John Hafen
IVP 413AJ (pictures and joy rides available on request)
On 8/8/08 12:50 PM, "Hamid Wasti" <hwasti@lm50.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
|
|