X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:40:10 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp244.iad.emailsrvr.com ([207.97.245.244] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.7) with ESMTPS id 3121016 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:56:08 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.97.245.244; envelope-from=marknlisa@hometel.com Received: from relay14.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay14.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 5D3D11F4474 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:55:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hometel.com (webmail15.webmail.iad.mlsrvr.com [192.168.1.39]) by relay14.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 585FD1EFF96 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:55:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by webmail.hometel.com (Authenticated sender: marknlisa@hometel.com, from: marknlisa@hometel.com) with HTTP; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:55:25 -0500 (CDT) X-Original-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:55:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: Part 23 vs Guaranteed Safety From: marknlisa@hometel.com X-Original-To: "Lancair List" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative;boundary="----=_20080909085525_59861" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Type: html X-Original-Message-ID: <1220968525.345917085@192.168.1.202> X-Mailer: webmail6.8 ------=_20080909085525_59861 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0ARob Wolf said: =0A=0A =0A=0A"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."=0A=0A =0A= =0ANow, now Rob, let's not put words in others' mouths... I didn't say the = certification process is "purely bureaucratic BS."=0A=0A =0A=0AHere's what = I said:=0A=0A =0A=0A"...FAR Part 23 certification guarantees nothing except= that a certificated aircraft meets the bureaucratic standards contained wi= thin the FAR."=0A=0A =0A=0AI believe certification CAN (and should be) be a= good thing, and I think the FAA started out that way back in the day. But = like most bureaucracies, it has evolved (in my opinion) into an organizatio= n more concerned with its own self interest and turf (read money) protectio= n than with those ethereal ideals of "safety" and "reliability."=0A=0A =0A= =0AHere's one example of why I think so:=0A=0A =0A=0AI believe if those man= aging the FAA were truly concerned about safety and reliability, General Av= iation aircraft would long ago have exited the production line with engines= sporting safe and reliable (compared to magnetos) computer-controlled igni= tion systems, as well as computer-controlled fuel injection systems. These = "newfangled" systems would ensure our engines could burn a READILY AVAILABL= E fuel. Instead, aviation engine manufacturers who live in the real world o= f FAA certification are just now taking their first tentative steps into th= e 21st century of internal combustion engine technology -- a place automobi= le manufacturers not saddled with a "certification process" have lived for = nearly three decades. Which begs the question, do you think Lycoming waited= this long to join the likes of Chevrolet and Honda in the spirit of safety= and reliability?=0A=0A =0A=0AIn my opinion, if our FAA certification proce= ss worked, it would have DEMANDED such "safety" and "reliability" innovatio= ns. Instead, our FAA mandates manufacturers traverse a circumspect and ridi= culously Byzantine "certification" process to prove -- only to the FAA, not= our courts -- such systems are safe and reliable.=0A=0A =0A=0AIf you can t= hink of a better example of "bureaucratic BS" than that, you have my admira= tion!=0A=0A =0A=0AI learned an interesting statistic in speaking with the m= anagement and development team at DeltaHawk engines (currently seeking cert= ification for a heavy-fuel piston aviation engine). They told me that from = drawing board to FAA certification, they estimate the development cost for = a new-design engine to be $20 million. I know the team had a flyable protot= ype installed in a Velocity with around $5 million invested (including purc= hase and build cost for the Velocity kit). That means they are estimating F= AA certification costs at somewhere north of $15 million. The ignorant and = inquiring among us (me) asks how can it possibly cost SO MUCH to determine = an engine meets minimum safety and reliability standards? Where is all that= money going? Could it possibly be to keep an aging and voracious bureaucra= cy alive and well?=0A=0A =0A=0ACan you say "bureaucratic BS?" I knew ya cou= ld...=0A=0A =0A=0ARegards,=0A=0A =0A=0AMark ------=_20080909085525_59861 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Rob Wolf said:
=0A
 
=0A
"But blanket statements like "all homebuilts are safer than certified a= irplanes" and "the certification process adds no safety -- it is purely bur= eaucratic BS" are based in ignorance."
=0A
 
=0A
Now, now R= ob, let's not put words in others' mouths... I didn't say the certification= process is "purely bureaucratic BS."
=0A
 
=0A
Here's what I said:
=0A
&nb= sp;
=0A
"...FAR Part 23 certif= ication guarantees nothing except that a certificated aircraft me= ets the bureaucratic standards contained within the FAR."=0A
 
=0A
I believe certification CAN= (and should be) be a good thing, and I think the FAA started out that= way back in the day. But like most bureaucracies, it has evolved= (in my opinion) into an organization more concerned with its own self inte= rest and turf (read money) protection than with those ethereal ideals of "s= afety" and "reliability."
=0A
&nbs= p;
=0A
Here's one example of why I think so:
=0A
 
=0A
I believe if those managing the FAA were tr= uly concerned about safety and reliability, General Aviation aircraft would= long ago have exited the production line with engines sporting s= afe and reliable (compared to magnetos) computer-controlled ignition system= s, as well as computer-controlled fuel injection systems. These "newfa= ngled" systems would ensure our engines could burn a READILY AVAILABLE= fuel. Instead, aviation engine manufacturers who = live in the real world of FAA certification are just now taking their first= tentative steps into the 21st century of internal combustion engine techno= logy -- a place automobile manufacturers not saddled with a "certification = process" have lived for nearly three decades. Which begs the question, do you think Lycoming waited this long to join th= e likes of Chevrolet and Honda in the spirit of safety and reliability?
=0A
 
=0A
In my opinion, if our FAA certification process worked, it would hav= e DEMANDED such "safety" and "reliability" innovations. Instead, our FAA ma= ndates manufacturers traverse a circumspect and ridiculously Byzantine "cer= tification" process to prove -- only to the FAA, not our courts -- such sys= tems are safe and reliable.
=0A
&n= bsp;
=0A
If you can think of a better example of= "bureaucratic BS" than that, you have my admiration!
=0A
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; mso-= fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi= -language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA" _e= xtended=3D"true"> 
=0A
I learned an = interesting statistic in speaking with the management and development team = at DeltaHawk engines (currently seeking certification for a heavy-fuel pist= on aviation engine). They told me that from drawing board to FAA certi= fication, they estimate the development cost for a new-design engine t= o be $20 million. I know the team had a flyable prototype installed in= a Velocity with around $5 million invested (including purchase and build c= ost for the Velocity kit). That means they are estimating FAA certification= costs at somewhere north of $15 million. The ignorant and inquiring among = us (me) asks how can it possibly cost SO MUCH to determine an engine meets = minimum safety and reliability standards? Where is all that money going? Co= uld it possibly be to keep an aging and voracious bureaucracy alive an= d well?
=0A
 
=0A
Can you say "bureaucratic BS?= " I knew ya could...
=0A
 =0A
Regards,
=0A
 
=0A
Mark 
------=_20080909085525_59861--