X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:45:23 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d21.mx.aol.com ([205.188.144.207] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.5) with ESMTP id 3052021 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:36:18 -0400 Received: from MikeEasley@aol.com by imo-d21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.4.) id q.ca9.2ef53bfc (42809) for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 19:36:12 -0400 (EDT) From: MikeEasley@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 19:36:11 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1217633771" X-Mailer: Unknown sub 34 X-Spam-Flag:NO -------------------------------1217633771 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John, I think you and I are on the same page. I think the FAA is under some pressure from the certified companies to enforce the current rule. I'm sure the certified companies aren't happy about the sales being lost to the experimental market. The only real argument the certified companies can make is the whole "amateur built for education and recreation" angle. I agree this has little to do with safety, and everything to do with the FAA trying to keep the amateur built market, amateur built, for whatever reason. Maybe this is pure FAA rattling its saber to enforce the rule as it was intended, nothing more. What I'm hoping doesn't happen is the FAA making it more complicated to manufacture kits, and more complicated to build and document the build process, just to curtail commercial assistance. It probably wouldn't work anyway, as I said in my first post, it would just make things worse for Joe Bartels and the guys out there trying to build their own airplanes. If you haven't read Dick VanGrunsven's article "Pokin' the Bear", you should. It lays out much of what I've been trying to communicate. _http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/whats_new/Pokin_the_Bear.pdf_ (http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/whats_new/Pokin_the_Bear.pdf) Mike Easley Colorado Springs **************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 ) -------------------------------1217633771 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John,
 
I think you and I are on the same page.  I think the FAA is under=20= some=20 pressure from the certified companies to enforce the current rule.  I'm= =20 sure the certified companies aren't happy about the sales being lost to the=20 experimental market.  The only real argument the certified companies ca= n=20 make is the whole "amateur built for education and recreation" angle. =20= I=20 agree this has little to do with safety, and everything to do with the FAA=20 trying to keep the amateur built market, amateur built, for whatever=20 reason.  Maybe this is pure FAA rattling its saber to enforce the rule=20= as=20 it was intended, nothing more.
 
What I'm hoping doesn't happen is the FAA making it more complicated to= =20 manufacture kits, and more complicated to build and document the build proce= ss,=20 just to curtail commercial assistance.  It probably wouldn't work anywa= y,=20 as I said in my first post, it would just make things worse for Joe Bar= tels=20 and the guys out there trying to build their own airplanes.
 
If you haven't read Dick VanGrunsven's article "Pokin' the Bear", you=20 should.  It lays out much of what I've been trying to communicate.
 
http:/= /www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/whats_new/Pokin_the_Bear.pdf
 
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs



Look= ing for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.
<= /BODY> -------------------------------1217633771--