X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:35:02 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web36601.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.18] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.7) with SMTP id 3120341 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:38:31 -0400 Received: (qmail 72563 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Sep 2008 00:38:32 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=aAq6EUlp+sUIVilVFHC/gnhQcPtI9vEYpoFHf6QdSjJKYzK1W6EyZxacurcPedDFBomWutBvBTTe616rGGEC8WEDqHR2R138g0wJDDV2GmhaAIIsnDMgJJRWh23QddKNKvlE71PFCQkT0SouR2SaJbaat9GH1D66jyRHDphkxUk=; X-YMail-OSG: OGtt3i4VM1mvSJ3z9oCVJIYbFXnsmht5eNqIbXrkgbaFt2A.aR9B6VVpxC3lLY.JXXwxw.2.SAjiX4NbnIckkZOnzlj0SZeaAPHE4grZnS62gkRcDVl1bTvEeT2OMa3lUNEKS0nurO4TBU0kWX4- Received: from [71.208.15.201] by web36601.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:38:31 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.218.2 X-Original-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:38:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Hannahan Reply-To: wfhannahan@yahoo.com Subject: 51% rule X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1108124483-1220920711=:72549" X-Original-Message-ID: <50640.72549.qm@web36601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --0-1108124483-1220920711=:72549 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =A0 Rob, =A0 From your comment I surmise you would answer these questions Yes. =A0 Would our quality of life be better if Ford and Chevy were building certified models of the cars they built in the 50=92s, at $200,000= a copy? =A0 Dick VanGrunsven can buy a kit from his company, build it in his spare time, and then sell it to you.=20 =A0 If Dick sets up a factory to assemble RV=92s to his impeccable standards he cannot sell them, without going through a horribly expensive certification process. Does this make sense? =A0 =A0 Rob wrote, =A0 =93FAR Part 23 guarantees a certain level of reliability and safety.=A0 Experimentals do not.=A0 That's why they are not allowed to be used for hire.=94 I wrote, =A0 =A0=93As each non-certified aircraft design accumulates a track record that demonstrates safety equal or better than certified counterparts they will be made eligib= le for commercial use. The percentage of experimental aircraft in commercial service will expand in an orderly fashion and the pace of technological evolution will accelerate.=94 =A0 Calculations of future safety performance are better than nothing, but actual accident data based on a long history of real world use trumps the theoretical estimates. =A0 Rob wrote, =A0 =93=A0But blanket statements like "all homebuilts are safer than certified airplanes" and "the certification process adds no safety -- it is purely bureaucratic BS" are based in ignorance.=94 =A0 I never wrote that. =A0 I wrote, =A0 =93Some will say that flying is more dangerous than driving, therefore certification is required. Competition, informed customers and th= e threat of legal action will curtail the bad actors and produce the near opt= imum risk benefit ratio. Buyers will still have the option to purchase a traditi= onally certificated aircraft, manufacturers will have the option to offer new prod= ucts as certified or experimental. Let the customer decide which is best.=94 =A0 What is wrong with this? Why don=92t you want a choice? We don=92t have the option of buying a certified car, yet cars have become dramaticall= y safer since the 60=92s muscle cars came out, without sacrificing performanc= e. From:=20 rwolf99@aol.com=20 =20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:48=20 PM Subject: [LML] Re: 51% rule =20 Bill Hannahan writes: <<=93Well senator, that jet is=20 twice as fast as this Baron, much more reliable, more comfortable, safer,= =20 quieter, easier to maintain, easier to fly, better instrumented and burns= less=20 fuel, but it=92s not certified, and we are not allowed to use non certifi= ed=20 aircraft for business.=94 >> Sorry, Bill.=A0 It might actually=20 be more reliable but there's no guarantee on that.=A0 Same goes for=20 safety.=A0 FAR Part 23 guarantees a certain level=20 of reliability and safety.=A0 Experimentals do not.=A0 That's why they=20 are not allowed to be used for hire. - Rob Wolf =0A=0A=0A --0-1108124483-1220920711=:72549 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

Rob,

 

From your comment I surmise you would answer these q= uestions Yes.

 

Would our quality of life be better if Ford and Chev= y were building certified models of the cars they built in the 50=92s, at $200,000= a copy?

 

Dick VanGrunsven can buy a kit from his company, bui= ld it in his spare time, and then sell it to you.

 

If Dick sets up a factory to assemble RV=92s to his = impeccable standards he cannot sell them, without going through a horribly expensive certification process. Does this make sense?

 

 

Rob wrote,

 

=93FAR Part 23 guarantees a certain = level of reliability and safety.  Experimentals do not.  That's why they a= re not allowed to be used for hire.=94

I wrote,

 

 =93As each non-certified aircraft design accumulates a track record that demonstrates safety equal or better than certified counterparts they will be made eligib= le for commercial use. The percentage of experimental aircraft in commercial service will expand in an orderly fashion and the pace of technological evolution will accelerate.=94

 

Calculations of future safety performance are better= than nothing, but actual accident data based on a long history of real world use trumps the theoretical estimates.

 

Rob wrote,

 

=93 But blanket statements like "all homebuilts= are safer than certified airplanes" and "the certification process adds no safety -- it is purely bureaucratic BS" are based in ignorance.=94

 

I never wrote that.

 

I wrote,

 

=93Some will say that flying is more dangerous than = driving, therefore certification is required. Competition, informed customers and th= e threat of legal action will curtail the bad actors and produce the near opt= imum risk benefit ratio. Buyers will still have the option to purchase a traditi= onally certificated aircraft, manufacturers will have the option to offer new prod= ucts as certified or experimental. Let the customer decide which is best.=94

 

What is wrong with this? Why don=92t you want a choi= ce? We don=92t have the option of buying a certified car, yet cars have become dramaticall= y safer since the 60=92s muscle cars came out, without sacrificing performanc= e.


From:=20 rwolf99@aol.com=20
Sent: Thursd= ay, September 04, 2008 11:48=20 PM
Subject: [LM= L] Re: 51% rule

Bill Hannahan writes:

<<=93Well senator, that= jet is=20 twice as fast as this Baron, much more reliable, more comfortable, safer,= =20 quieter, easier to maintain, easier to fly, better instrumented and burns= less=20 fuel, but it=92s not certified, and we are not allowed to use non certifi= ed=20 aircraft for business.=94 >>

Sorry, Bill.  It might act= ually=20 be more reliable but there's no guarantee on that.  Same goes for=20 safety.  FAR Part 23 guarantees a certain = level=20 of reliability and safety.  Experimentals do not.  That's why t= hey=20 are not allowed to be used for hire.

- Rob Wolf


=0A=0A --0-1108124483-1220920711=:72549--