|
Rob,
From your comment I surmise you would answer these questions Yes.
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?
Dick VanGrunsven can buy a kit from his company, build it in
his spare time, and then sell it to you.
If Dick sets up a factory to assemble RV’s to his impeccable
standards he cannot sell them, without going through a horribly expensive
certification process. Does this make sense?
Rob wrote,
“FAR Part 23 guarantees a certain level of
reliability and safety. Experimentals do not. That's why they are
not allowed to be used for hire.”
I wrote,
“As each
non-certified aircraft design accumulates a track record that demonstrates
safety equal or better than certified counterparts they will be made eligible
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.”
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,
“ 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.”
I never wrote that.
I wrote,
“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 the near optimum
risk benefit ratio. Buyers will still have the option to purchase a traditionally
certificated aircraft, manufacturers will have the option to offer new products
as certified or experimental. Let the customer decide which is best.”
What is wrong with this? Why don’t you want a choice? We don’t
have the option of buying a certified car, yet cars have become dramatically
safer since the 60’s muscle cars came out, without sacrificing performance.
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:48
PM
Subject: [LML] Re: 51% rule
Bill Hannahan writes:
<<“Well senator, that jet is
twice as fast as this Baron, much more reliable, more comfortable, 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.” >>
Sorry, Bill. It might actually
be more reliable but there's no guarantee on that. Same goes for
safety. FAR Part 23 guarantees a certain level
of reliability and safety. Experimentals do not. That's why they
are not allowed to be used for hire.
- Rob Wolf
|