Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:34:50 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-728882@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.40.35.68; envelope-from=matt.hapgood@alumni.duke.edu
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=fr4.webmaillogin.com; client-ip=66.57.255.54; envelope-from=matt.hapgood@alumni.duke.edu
From: "Matt Hapgood" <matt.hapgood@alumni.duke.edu>
Subject: RE: [LML] FAA  new order
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <list-728574@logan.com>

Steve,

I respectfully think that you are way off base.  The FAA's issue with Epic
may not impact the rest of us, but then again it might.  I think it would be
foolish to assume that it won't, as the risk of being wrong is too great.

As for media attention and whether the plane has 4 seats or 10 seats - I
don't really think that is the issue.  The media gets worked up when it
impacts (literally) people on the ground.  Planes crash all the time, but
the only ones that get significant media attention are ones that do damage
to people on the ground, are near a school, or are carrying someone famous.

You may feel that aircraft with 6 plus seats isn't for personal use, but
first, the issue is 5+ seats and secondly, Raytheon (Barons and Bonanzas),
Piper (Cherokee sixes, Malibus, etc) and Cessna (210, etc) certainly would
disagree with you, as the vast majority of their intended market is not "for
hire" operators.  I use my little 360 for a great deal of business flying -
including taking my partner to business meetings.  If I had a IV or ES I
could carry another employee or 2.  That's still personal use, and I'll bet
a bunch of Lancair, Glassair, Cozy, etc. builders are just like me.

>From the perspective of the VAST (99%?) majority of EAAers a Lancair IV
doesn't even come close to meeting the intent of the rules that that their
vari-eze, or pietenpol, etc did.  What if 15 years ago the FAA had gotten
worked up and THEY had stood back and said "Hey, LIV's violate the purpose
and intent of homebuilts - they aren't for education, they're too complex,
and just think what the media will say when one of those 300mph, 4-seat,
pressurized, turboed, glass cockpit planes crash - it will ruin it for the
rest of us..."

That would have been a real shame.  Think of the progress that would NOT
have occurred.  Think of the enjoyment that many on this list would have
missed.

Steve, your final paragraph about common sense reflects a total lack of
reality.  The LIVP was a dramatically bigger stretch in performance and
capability when it was introduced than the Epic does.  The IVP effectively
introduced pressurization and flight level flying to amateur builders, it
significantly expanded the speeds achieved by homebuilts, and introduced a
large number of amateur builders to a very aggressive wing that has proven
to be quite a handful.  On top of that, Lancair pioneered advanced
fast-build kits and turbine engines.  Your common sense should recognize
that Lancair has pushed every corner of the envelope, and Epic has merely
increased the volume, seats and power with processes, procedures and
equipment pioneered by Lancair.

You don't have to help Rick - no one on this list does.  But personally I
like progress, and I like a government agency that doesn't create different
sets of rules for different people.

Matt Hapgood