X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:09:01 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp144.iad.emailsrvr.com ([207.97.245.144] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.7) with ESMTPS id 3116091 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:01:17 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.97.245.144; envelope-from=marknlisa@hometel.com Received: from relay4.r5.iad.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay4.r5.iad.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E71EC108C2 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 14:00:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hometel.com (webmail12.webmail.iad.mlsrvr.com [192.168.1.33]) by relay4.r5.iad.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E0AE8108C8 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 14:00:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by webmail.hometel.com (Authenticated sender: marknlisa@hometel.com, from: marknlisa@hometel.com) with HTTP; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 13:00:34 -0500 (CDT) X-Original-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 13:00:34 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: 51% rule From: marknlisa@hometel.com X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative;boundary="----=_20080905130034_64923" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Type: html X-Original-Message-ID: <1220637634.891222195@192.168.1.70> X-Mailer: webmail6.8 ------=_20080905130034_64923 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0ARob Wolf says: "FAR Part 23 guarantees a certain level of reliability an= d safety."=0A=0A =0A=0AThen why does FAR Part 23 certification not protect = a manufacturer from liability? If an aircraft's manufacturer jumps through = the bureaucratic hoops (not to mention shelling out the massive dinero) req= uired to meet such exacting "reliability" and "safety" standards, why does = our government not then declare such an aircraft "safe" and "reliable" enou= gh to prohibit tort litigation based on safety and reliability?=0A=0A =0A= =0AThe reason is simple: because FAR Part 23 cerification guarantees nothin= g except that a certificated aircraft meets the bureaucratic standards cont= ained within the FAR.=0A=0A =0A=0AHere's another way to look at it. Do you = think a certificate from the FAA guarantees a certain level of reliability = and safety from a pilot?=0A=0A =0A=0ARegards,=0A=0A =0A=0AMark ------=_20080905130034_64923 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Rob Wolf says: "FAR Part 23 <= B>guarantees a certain level of reliability and safety."=0A
 
=0A
Then why does FAR Part 23 certification= not protect a manufacturer from liability? If an aircraft's manufactu= rer jumps through the bureaucratic hoops (not to mention shelling out = the massive dinero) required to meet such exacting "reliability" and "safet= y" standards, why does our government not then declare such an aircraft "sa= fe" and "reliable" enough to prohibit tort litigation based on safety and r= eliability?
=0A
 
=0A
The reason is simp= le: because FAR Part 23 cerification guarantees nothing except that&nb= sp;a certificated aircraft meets the bureaucratic standards contained withi= n the FAR.
=0A
 
=0A
Here's another way = to look at it. Do you think a certificate from the FAA guarantees= a certain level of reliability and safety from a pilot?
=0A 
=0A
Regards,
=0A
 
= =0A
Mark
 ------=_20080905130034_64923--