Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:40:32 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-730894@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.163.178.160; envelope-from=wfhannahan@yahoo.com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=HLdL2aqHIymHAYPWg0K8V3BVWu4PZc5ouBpNSe6Y9aOxGxx47zV09VHI8TnOBY+zofPLb7b6/gEU8ADk9BirusybgyU1YCAQUMw3Pch8G60/gnvF1iCFMFV2lQNT5TxziSKYlgMN2XA2ihdleCx9VK/TbbsTTMbDTlZjqF65wBU=  ;
From: BILL HANNAHAN <wfhannahan@yahoo.com>
Subject: [LML] Re: FAA trying to stop us my .02
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


An amateur builder with no skills or experience can buy a 4P kit, build it
in his back yard, get it certified, and then sell it to you. 

Dick VanGrunsven can buy a kit from his company, build it in his spare
time, get it certified, and then sell it to you. 

If Dick sets up a factory to assemble RV’s to impeccable standards he
cannot get them certified, nor can you. Does this make any sense?

There are several hundred million cars in America. Each car has two
spindles smaller than your thumb holding the front wheels on. If a spindle
snaps off your car or that of an oncoming car, it could veer across the
centerline killing you in a heartbeat. Not one of these spindle designs
has been certified by government engineers. There is no paper trail
certifying the materials and process used to manufacture these parts. 

Would our quality of life be better if Ford and Chevy were building
certified models of the cars they built in the 50’s, at $200,000 a copy?

Imagine a world in which the only way to obtain a high performance car was
to build your own, would that make sense?

Evolving high energy technology is inherently risky. Not evolving
technology is more risky in the long run.

Decades of overregulation have stifled the natural evolution of general
aviation technology that would have occurred in an environment of
unfettered competition. We have become comfortable with this condition and
we strive to jump through the shrinking hoop of government regulation
without getting stuck. Now Rick is stuck.

Instead of condemning people like Rick who push the technology, we should
direct our efforts at making the law rational.

People who actually build more than 50% of their airplane should continue
to get a mechanics certificate and fly just as they do now. But there are
a lot of people who want a modern high performance plane but lack the
skill, desire or time to build their own.

Kit manufacturers should be able to sell kits built to any level of
completion including 100%, flight tested. The planes would require annual
condition inspections by certified mechanics, and buyers would be required
to sign a statement that they understand the aircraft is not government
certified, and not approved for commercial use. They would contain the
usual passenger warnings found in all experimental aircraft. People like
Rick, Van and Joe would be free to push the technology as hard as possible
while providing aircraft as safe or safer than true amateur builts.

To differentiate the under 50% planes from true armature builts we could
give that category a new name, say, “non-certified”.

The cash flow from this large new stream of customers can finance research
and development of light aircraft technology, accelerating the evolution
process.

Now fast forward 10 years. The chairman of the senate transportation
committee calls his local FBO and says, “I need to charter a fast plane to
make a fundraiser 300 miles away.” “Come on out senator, we have a plane
ready to go.” The pilot walks the senator out past the sleek, compact,
Lancair jet, to a clapped out Baron. “Why aren’t we taking that jet” the
senator asks. The pilot responds “Well senator, that jet is more than
twice as fast as this Baron, much more reliable, safer, quieter, easier to
maintain, easier to fly, better instrumented and burns less fuel, but it’s
not certified, and we are not allowed to use non certified aircraft for
business.” That’s when things will really change.

As each non-certified aircraft design accumulates a track record that
demonstrates safety equivalent to its certified counterparts they will be
made eligible for commercial use. The percentage of non-certified aircraft
in commercial service will expand in an orderly fashion and the pace of
technological evolution will accelerate.

Some will say that flying is more dangerous than driving, therefore
certification is required. Competition, informed customers and the threat
of legal action will curtail the bad actors and produce near optimum risk
benefit ratios. Buyers will still have the option to purchase a
certificated aircraft, manufacturers will have the option to offer new
products as certified or non-certified. Let the customer decide which is
best. I trust the marketplace more than I trust the government.

We should encourage the EAA and AOPA to develop proposals based on these
concepts and submit them to key people in the FAA and key people in
politics, to plant the seeds for a new approach to aircraft design and
production that will improve our quality of life.

Bill Hannahan


BILL HANNAHAN
WFHANNAHAN@YAHOO.COM


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com