Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:30:11 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-3043048@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.97.245.164; envelope-from=marknlisa@hometel.com
Subject: RE: 51% Rule, the FAA
From: marknlisa@hometel.com
Reply-To: marknlisa@hometel.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;boundary="----=_20080725071011_36645"
Importance: Normal

------=_20080725071011_36645
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0AMarv,=0A=0A =0A=0AI sent to the list yesterday using the email address i=
n the primary "TO" line, but it didn't make it for some reason... Can you p=
ost it for me?=0A=0A =0A=0AThanks,=0A=0A =0A=0AMark=0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=
=0AMESSAGE FOLLOWS......=0A=0A =0A=0AJim, =0A=0AComments such as, "The FAA =
is very generous ... in allowing us to build airplanes..." and "...the FAA =
could make that much more problematic..." are at the heart of this discussi=
on. We, as a society, have grown so comfortable allowing the Gov't "take ca=
re of" and "watch over" us, we don't even notice (or worse, we DO notice, b=
ut don't care) when a non-elected body of bureaucrats takes away our freedo=
ms.=0A=0AThe Gov't tells us we must wear helmets when riding motorcycles, a=
nd we must wear seatbelts when driving our cars. Why? Certainly not to prot=
ect other drivers. And certainly not to reduce the load on society to pay f=
or medical bills. A rider NOT wearing a helmet is much more likely to die i=
n a crash. Funerals are much less expensive than even a short stay in the h=
ospital recovering from the road rash you're almost certain to get if you h=
ave an accident riding your motorcycle wearing a helmet with shorts, a tank=
 top and flip flops. The only conclusion I can reach is because the Gov't t=
hinks we're too stupid to make intelligent decisions regarding our own pers=
onal safety -- and we seem to be fine with that...=0A=0AObviously, there ne=
eds to be some protections in place to prevent airplanes falling on hapless=
 innocents -- and there is. It's called a civil lawsuit. You drop a plane o=
n me, I can sue you. Why does the Gov't need to be involved?=0A=0AThe FAA "=
demands" a certain level of "safety" from certified aircraft builders, yet =
meeting those certification levels provides NO protection from product liab=
ility. What does that say for the court's, the public's or even the Gov't's=
 confidence in the FAA's certification process?=0A=0ADon't get me wrong, I =
believe the FAA DOES serve a useful purpose, up to a point. That point is w=
hen a good suggestion becomes law. I have no problem with the FAA making in=
formed recommendations and suggestions on best practices. It's when those r=
ecommendations and suggestions become written in stone I get agitated. I've=
 never seen ANY rule or law (including the Ten Commandments) that applies i=
n EVERY situation. Tell me how and why you think I should do things a certa=
in way, then get out of the way and let me do. If I screw up and kill mysel=
f it's my problem. If I hurt someone else, they have all the resources of t=
he civil courts at their disposal to seek relief if I don't make things rig=
ht.=0A=0AI wonder what state aviation would be in today if Orville and Wilb=
ur had to deal with the FAA...=0A=0ARegards,=0A=0A Mark =0A=0AOriginal mess=
age:=0A=0AFrom: Jim Nordin [mailto:panelmaker@earthlink.net] =0ASent: Wedne=
sday, July 23, 2008 9:29 PM=0ATo: lml@lancaironline.net=0ASubject: 51% Rule=
, the FAA=0A=0AJohn, you point out (wish) that the FAA should get out of ev=
erything that isn=E2=80=99t =E2=80=9CCertified=E2=80=9D. Well the plane you=
 built is =E2=80=9Ccertified=E2=80=9D if you had it inspected. It=E2=80=99s=
 in the Experimental category, Amateur built. The FAA is very generous (wit=
h the dedicated help of the EAA) in allowing us to build airplanes that hav=
e the capability of flying 300 mph, over heavy populated areas, in IMC, and=
 the other conditions that would challenge the guy at the wheel to the poin=
t of destruction. A strict definition of who built what or percentages woul=
d strangle the homebuilder to the point you would not be able to build a pl=
ane in your garage or anywhere else. You would be required to have certific=
ations to build airplanes the same as standard category airplanes. It=E2=80=
=99s too bad you don=E2=80=99t want the feds telling you that you can=E2=80=
=99t do something because you didn=E2=80=99t measure up to the regs. I don=
=E2=80=99t want you flying things that don=E2=80=99t measure up. The regs a=
re there to protect us not to inhibit us.  Naive? Hardly. I=E2=80=99ve buil=
t airplanes and know the complexity and truly appreciate the rules and regs=
 for what they allow us to do. You want to jump off a hill with a sheet for=
 a wing (your example)=E2=80=A6 the FAA has no problem with that =E2=80=A6 =
go for it. That=E2=80=99s a hell of a lot different than flying a 3,000 pou=
nd 300mph machine over populated areas at night in IMC =E2=80=A6 the FAA co=
uld make that much more problematic. They could make it impossible to fly V=
MC in a 60hp single passenger machine you built when flying over the unpopu=
lated desert only on Saturday mornings when the bp is above 30=E2=80=9D! Th=
e FAA could just do away with the option altogether. All this said I would =
not discourage you to wish all you want. Give a good shot at abiding by the=
 rules too, poorly written as they may be. Take them seriously for they are=
 constructive and well meaning.=0A=0AJim=0A
------=_20080725071011_36645
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<font face=3D"arial" size=3D"2"><DIV>Marv,</DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV=
>I sent to the list yesterday using the email address in the primary "TO" l=
ine, but it didn't make it for some reason... Can you post it for me?</DIV>=
=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>Thanks,</DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>Mark</=
DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>MES=
SAGE FOLLOWS......</DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>Jim, =0A<P class=3DMsoP=
lainText>Comments such as, "The FAA is very generous ... in allowing us to =
build airplanes..." and "...the FAA could make that much more problematic..=
." are at the heart of this discussion. We, as a society, have grown so com=
fortable allowing the Gov't "take care of" and "watch over" us, we don't ev=
en notice (or worse, we DO notice, but don't care) when a non-elected body =
of bureaucrats takes away our freedoms.</P>=0A<P class=3DMsoPlainText>The G=
ov't tells us we must wear helmets when riding motorcycles, and we must wea=
r seatbelts when driving our cars. Why? Certainly not to protect other driv=
ers. And certainly not to reduce the load on society to pay for medical bil=
ls. A rider NOT wearing a helmet is much more likely to die in a crash. Fun=
erals are much less expensive than even a short stay in the hospital recove=
ring from the road rash you're almost certain to get if you have an acciden=
t riding your motorcycle wearing a helmet with shorts, a tank top and flip =
flops. The only conclusion I can reach&nbsp;is because the Gov't thinks we'=
re too stupid to make intelligent decisions regarding our own personal safe=
ty -- and we seem to be fine with that...</P>=0A<P class=3DMsoPlainText>Obv=
iously, there needs to be some protections in place to prevent airplanes fa=
lling on hapless innocents -- and there is. It's called a civil lawsuit. Yo=
u drop a plane on me, I can sue you. Why does the Gov't need to be involved=
?</P>=0A<P class=3DMsoPlainText>The FAA "demands" a certain level of "safet=
y" from certified aircraft builders, yet meeting those certification levels=
 provides NO protection from product liability. What does that say for the =
court's, the public's or&nbsp;even the Gov't's&nbsp;confidence in the FAA's=
 certification process?</P>=0A<P class=3DMsoPlainText>Don't get me wrong, I=
 believe the FAA DOES serve a useful purpose, up to a point. That point is =
when a good suggestion becomes law. I have no problem with the FAA making i=
nformed recommendations and suggestions on best practices. It's when those =
recommendations and suggestions become written in stone I get agitated. I'v=
e never seen ANY rule or law (including the Ten Commandments) that applies =
in EVERY situation. Tell me how and why&nbsp;you think I should do things a=
 certain way, then get out of the way and let me do. If I screw up and kill=
 myself it's my problem. If I hurt someone else, they have all the resource=
s of the civil courts at their disposal to seek relief if I don't make thin=
gs right.</P>=0A<P class=3DMsoPlainText>I wonder what state aviation would =
be in today if Orville and Wilbur had to deal with the FAA...</P>=0A<P clas=
s=3DMsoPlainText>Regards,</P>=0A<P class=3DMsoPlainText>&nbsp;Mark </P>=0A<=
P class=3DMsoPlainText>Original message:</P>=0A<P class=3DMsoPlainText><FON=
T face=3DArial size=3D2>From: Jim Nordin [mailto:panelmaker@earthlink.net] =
<BR>Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9:29 PM<BR>To: lml@lancaironline.net<BR>=
Subject: 51% Rule, the FAA</FONT></P>=0A<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>John=
, you point out (wish) that the FAA should get out of everything that isn=
=E2=80=99t =E2=80=9CCertified=E2=80=9D. Well the plane you built is =E2=80=
=9Ccertified=E2=80=9D if you had it inspected. It=E2=80=99s in the Experime=
ntal category, Amateur built. The FAA is very generous (with the dedicated =
help of the EAA) in allowing us to build airplanes that have the capability=
 of flying 300 mph, over heavy populated areas, in IMC, and the other condi=
tions that would challenge the guy at the wheel to the point of destruction=
. A strict definition of who built what or percentages would strangle the h=
omebuilder to the point you would not be able to build a plane in your gara=
ge or anywhere else. You would be required to have certifications to build =
airplanes the same as standard category airplanes. It=E2=80=99s too bad you=
 don=E2=80=99t want the feds telling you that you can=E2=80=99t do somethin=
g because you didn=E2=80=99t measure up to the regs. I don=E2=80=99t want y=
ou flying things that don=E2=80=99t measure up. The regs are there to prote=
ct us not to inhibit us.&nbsp; Naive? Hardly. I=E2=80=99ve built airplanes =
and know the complexity and truly appreciate the rules and regs for what th=
ey allow us to do. You want to jump off a hill with a sheet for a wing (you=
r example)=E2=80=A6 the FAA has no problem with that =E2=80=A6 go for it. T=
hat=E2=80=99s a hell of a lot different than flying a 3,000 pound 300mph ma=
chine over populated areas at night in IMC =E2=80=A6 the FAA could make tha=
t much more problematic. They could make it impossible to fly VMC in a 60hp=
 single passenger machine you built when flying over the unpopulated desert=
 only on Saturday mornings when the bp is above 30=E2=80=9D! The FAA could =
just do away with the option altogether. All this said I would not discoura=
ge you to wish all you want. Give a good shot at abiding by the rules too, =
poorly written as they may be. Take them seriously for they are constructiv=
e and well meaning.</FONT></P>=0A<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Jim<BR></FO=
NT></P><!-- end sanitized html --></DIV></font>
------=_20080725071011_36645--