Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:26:43 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-3071478@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.216.121.174; envelope-from=marknlisa@hometel.com
From: "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa@hometel.com>
References: <redirect-3067842@logan.com>
Subject: RE: B Ruling
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <redirect-3067842@logan.com>
Thread-Index: Acj6Bv8yaw2pWTPzSQmZ61xHtFJcJQA4dKRA

I've embedded my responses below...

-----Original Message-----
From: Hamid Wasti [mailto:hwasti@lm50.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:51 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FAA comment on new 51% A/B Ruling

> How do you propose protecting the unsuspecting consumer that lacks the 
> ability to discern good and bad workmanship from buying your product?

Why did a purchaser's responsibility to ensure he/she is not getting ripped
off suddenly become the Government's responsibility? 

> 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.

This is a truly sad commentary on the state of our society: Even
intelligent, educated people assume the populace "deserves" protection from
their own stupidity. It used to be folks sought education, and took the time
to accumulate data about those with whom they did business, so they could
rely on their own good judgment to make informed decisions. Now we assume
the products we purchase MUST have met a battery of Gov't requirements and
restrictions making it safe for the ignorant. IMHO, relying on the Gov't to
take care of ANYTHING for me except the clear duties outlined in its
original charter -- the US Constitution -- diminishes the importance of
education, understanding the reality that NO ONE cares about me personally
more than ME and, ultimately, the true meaning and value of freedom. 

> 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?

Can an intelligent person not make the assumption that flying an aircraft
during its initial test phase might pose a danger to "the public," and
further make the conscious decision NOT to fly over populated areas until
the design is proven? Do we really need the Gov't to tell us this? I'll
suggest we already have a system in place to deal with those few foolhardy
individuals who WOULD take these kinds of chances -- it's called the civil
courts. Yes, I know, that would involve attorneys. But believe it or not,
lawyers actually DO serve a good cause every now and again.

> ...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.

Lawyers run to bring suits after aviation accidents. But instead of suing
the person most directly responsible -- most often the pilot -- they go
directly after the companies involved in the manufacture of the aircraft --
despite the fact that certified aircraft manufacturers and their contractors
have jumped through the incredibly expensive, Byzantine hoops called "FAA
Certification" (a process, bafflingly, which provides NO protection in the
civil courts).

To me, this is but another symptom of the disease that is rotting away our
society's slowly fading, collective understanding that PERSONAL
RESPONSIBILITY is one of the most important precepts of FREEDOM.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Hafen [mailto:j.hafen@comcast.net] 
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 2:33 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Hamid's comments on FAA's new 51% A/B Ruling

> 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.

I couldn't agree more with John here! Something that gets lost in the
shuffle about the fact that people "can, do and will say anything" is that
this sentiment applies to ALL people -- even people working for the Gov't
"protecting us" from evil aircraft manufacturers. Anyone who believes an
inspector hasn't "missed" a cut corner here, and overlooked a pencil-whipped
test there for nefarious, self-serving reasons is living in fantasy land...

> 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.

HEAR HEAR!!!!!!!

Regards,

Mark Sletten