X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:55:25 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m23.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.4] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c2) with ESMTP id 731080 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:53:20 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.4; envelope-from=RWolf99@aol.com Received: from RWolf99@aol.com by imo-m23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r5.5.) id q.1fd.acab505 (3850) for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:52:30 -0400 (EDT) From: RWolf99@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <1fd.acab505.30659ade@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:52:30 EDT Subject: Non-Certified Aircraft X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1127497950" X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5017 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1127497950 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en I agree with almomst everything Bill Hannahan said. We SHOULD be allowed t= o=20 buy non-certified aircraft from professional builders. We SHOULD be=20 required to waive the right to sue the manufacturer for anything -- workman= ship,=20 design, anything. =20 Where BIll is wrong is where he states -- =20 <> =20 It may be faster, quieter and more efficient, but it will not be safer. =20 I have been a homebuilder for over a decade, and a lurker for two decades=20 before that. I have been a senior engineer at a certified airplane company= for=20 four years. The FARs governing certification virtually guarantee that=20 certified airplanes are safer. The rules do not make them less likely to b= reak,=20 but they ensure that the consequences of failure are commensurate with thei= r=20 likelihood. (Put it simply -- if the effect of a failure are "minor", it's= =20 allowed to happen more often than failures whose effects are "hazardous".)=20= =20 This characteristic of the cerification process dominates virtually every=20 element of certified airplane design. Not even the most anal homebuilder -= - and=20 believe me, the Lancair ranks have many of these folks, including myself at= =20 times -- builds their airplanes to that standard across the board. =20 I often (informally) summarize this approach as saying that "The FAA is the=20= =20 single biggest reason for the lack of progess in aviation, but simultaneousl= y =20 the single biggest reason why aviation is so safe." It often pisses me off=20= =20 what the government makes us do in the certified world, but it does provide=20= a =20 level of safety that we collectively find acceptable. =20 So I agree with BIll that good things will happen if we take the shackles =20 off of the professional builder community, and transfer some responsibility=20= =20 from the government to the individual, but I disagree that homebuilts are s= afer. =20 - Rob Wolf =20 -------------------------------1127497950 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en

I agree with almomst everything Bill Hannahan said. We SHOULD be=20 allowed to buy non-certified aircraft from professional builders. We=20 SHOULD be required to waive the right to sue the manufacturer for anything -= -=20 workmanship, design, anything.

Where BIll is wrong is where he states --

<<that jet is more than twice as fast as thi= s=20 Baron, much more reliable, safer, quieter, easier to maintain, easier to fly= ,=20 better instrumented and burns less fuel, but it=E2=80=99s not=20 certified,>>

It may be faster, quieter and more efficient, but it will not be=20 safer.

I have been a homebuilder for over a decade, and a lurker for two=20 decades before that. I have been a senior engineer at a certified airp= lane=20 company for four years. The FARs governing certification virtually=20 guarantee that certified airplanes are safer. The rules do not make th= em=20 less likely to break, but they ensure that the consequences of failure are=20 commensurate with their likelihood. (Put it simply -- if the effect of= a=20 failure are "minor", it's allowed to happen more often than failures whose=20 effects are "hazardous".) This characteristic of the cerification proc= ess=20 dominates virtually every element of certified airplane design. Not ev= en=20 the most anal homebuilder -- and believe me, the Lancair ranks have many of=20 these folks, including myself at times -- builds their airplanes to that=20 standard across the board.

I often (informally) summarize this approach as saying that "The FAA is= the=20 single biggest reason for the lack of progess in aviation, but simultaneousl= y=20 the single biggest reason why aviation is so safe." It often pisses me= off=20 what the government makes us do in the certified world, but it does provide=20= a=20 level of safety that we collectively find acceptable.

So I agree with BIll that good things will happen if we take the shackl= es=20 off of the professional builder community, and transfer some responsibi= lity=20 from the government to the individual, but I disagree that homebuilts are=20 safer.

- Rob Wolf

-------------------------------1127497950--