Return-Path: <lancair.list-request@olsusa.com>
Received: from pop3.olsusa.com ([63.150.212.2] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5b3)
  with ESMTP id 846816 for rob@logan.com; Sat, 04 Aug 2001 19:57:12 -0400
Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.101]) by pop3.olsusa.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71866U8000L800S0V35)
          with ESMTP id com for <lancair.list@olsusa.com>;
          Sat, 4 Aug 2001 15:22:48 -0400
Received: from Epijk@aol.com
	by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id k.70.df046f7 (2612)
	 for <lancair.list@olsusa.com>; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 15:32:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Epijk@aol.com
Message-ID: <70.df046f7.289da7d2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 15:32:34 EDT
Subject: Re: Fw: flight
To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
Jeff:
Your letter of 8/4 was sage advice, and right on point.

<<Just because it is experimental doesn't relieve the pilot from flying an 
airworthy aircraft (see FAR 91.7).>>

Based on experience with the "experimental mindset", I feared that your 
advice might fall on too many deaf ears. And guess what: it took only 9 hours 
to produce the following moronic emission, suggesting that you had somehow 
committed an unforgivable betrayal, to wit:

<<<>>>

Too bad this guy couldn't make it beyond the first sentence of 91.7(b). I 
don't really understand what makes so many of them think that they are exempt 
from the FAR's. The airworthiness certificates are issued under the generous 
provisions of  FAR 21-191(g) and subordinate, but nowhere is there any 
suspension of the requirements for airworthiness, nor of the standards under 
which airworthiness is established. 

The intellectual arrogance which leads these people to think (forgive the 
loose terminology) that their knowledge is superior to the 
painfully-accumulated knowledge embodied in the FAR's is just baffling. But 
how in the world do they get to the belief that Part 91 doesn't apply to them?

In the past few years, the insurance companies have been establishing the 
de-facto standards. I think it began in the experimental world when 
patently-unqualified pilots began driving Glasair-3's into the ground. You 
just don't go from a 172 into a 250 knot, 30 psf-wing-loading, complex 
airplane without some significant transition training. Ten years ago, I did 
quite a bit of checkout and transition training for pilots moving up to 
moderate-performance twins like the 310. Currently, that has all but 
vaporized since the insurance companies have raised the requirements-bar so 
high for a 310 that not many qualify, and those that do hardly need any 
training. 

Looks like the same thing will continue to happen in the L4 world (and other 
high-performance  experimentals) as long as the loss rate continues to 
spiral. Frankly, I've been surprised that insurance has continued to be 
available for exp's at all. And I believe that the attitude embodied in the 
response to your post will continue to ramp the losses upward. My guess is 
that soon, many will decide that the only practical option is to fly 
uninsured. (I know firsthand of exp-drivers who have already made that 
decision.)
Jack Kane 


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://www.olsusa.com/mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair

Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>