Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:56:48 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-1804700@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.36.178.142; envelope-from=JJHALLE@stoel.com
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Safety Czar
Thread-Topic: Safety Czar
Thread-Index: AcdF8HjqedWL9hOGTiOzFcPRMYjg6wANBjpQ
From: "Halle, John" <JJHALLE@stoel.com>

=20
  John wrote:

  I admit that I have been biased in certain ways as a result of some
military
  background, and flying certified aircraft after that.  This is my
first
  experimental.  So please bear with the FNG until he learns the ropes a
  little better.

Having followed a similar path and arrived at experimental about five
years ago, perhaps I can offer some thoughts.  The safety officer in a
military squadron was responsible for safety policy in an environment
that, in most cases, involved a single kind of aircraft, all built the
same way, all maintained by the same crew and all dedicated to the same,
narrowly focused mission.  What happened to anyone was, almost by
definition, relevant to pretty much everyone else.  The safety offer was
also usually a very high ranking person with the ability to issue orders
with the expectation that they would be followed.  Finally, a squadron
was a close-knit group who lived together and flew together so safety
policies and their implementation could be closely monitored.

The experimental community is about as far from that as you can get and
still fly actual airplanes.  There are all kinds of experimental
aircraft and even those of a particular model vary substantially as a
result of individual builder and owner decisions.  They perform a wide
variety of "missions", are located all over the world and are flown by a
group that tends to pride itself on its independence (read the "list"
lately?)  There is probably no standardized policy (other than John
Deakin's immortal advice: "Don't do nuthin' dumb") that would apply
across the board and, if there was, there is very little chance that it
would be universally accepted and even less that it could be enforced.

Why is this important?  It is important because, like it or not, you
really are the safety czar.  From how you build it to how you fly it to
how you maintain it, it's all up to you.  You can (legally) substitute
bubble gum for hysol if you think it will work.  You can use nylaflow
brake lines (and even quote compelling authority for it.)  You can
believe that you are a licensed repair person because the FAA says you
are and do things to your airplane that you don't know how to do.  You
can take it off and fly it anywhere under any conditions and no one will
bust you unless and until you get back alive.

One thing, for better or for worse, about experimental aviation is that
the backstops that you can rely on in the certified, and even more in
the military, world are not there and really can't be because of the
diversity of what experimental folks do and the absence of serious
testing programs.  Your mother really doesn't live here.  That is, in
many ways, a wonderful thing for which I am becoming ever more grateful
but it does impose an added burden on individual builders and pilots.

Incidentlly, there are all kinds of support systems for dealing with
safety issues.  The LML is one of the best.=20

John J. Halle
Stoel Rives LLP
900 SW 5th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 294-9233 office
(503 545-4307 cell