Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:01:45 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-1840586@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.93.47.40; envelope-from=schaefer@rts-services.com
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Collaborating on checklists
From: "Richard T. Schaefer" <schaefer@rts-services.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-1833002@logan.com>
References: <list-1833002@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I think it should be available in source form with all the appropriate
legal disclaimers that state that this is for reference ONLY in
developing your own POH.

Then we could discuss (via this group) additions/changes based on
various common systems that people have. 
Each builder is ultimately responsible for their own POH.


On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 14:25 -0500, Marvin Kaye wrote:
> Posted for "Kevin Stallard" <Kevin@arilabs.net>:
> 
>   I think it is available because Columbia is a certificated bird.  The
>   individual manufacturer is responsible for his/her own checklists and
>   POH.  I personally don't think it is appropriate to make this stuff
>   available online (at least for the experimental airplanes), there are
>   too many variations between airplanes in the kit building category.
>   
>   Kevin
> 
> """
>   My comparison with Columbia was to point out that making the POH
>   available online isn't a rarity, but common.  I guess Lancair is hoping
>   a few guys will lose their POH during the build process and will need to
>   purchase a second one.  Who knows.
>   Mike
> """
> 
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/