Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:11:29 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-3756946@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.69; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net;
  b=in6Rd8GjSggy+5Wmnxeos3NtwZwrvJnlZ7xjOlFmEfd88PCTVEmacHO+COxKHiFP;
  h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
From: "Colyn Case at earthlink" <colyncase@earthlink.net>
References: <list-3755926@logan.com>
Subject: inspections - responsibility
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Craig G's comments have me repenting of accusation.

Whatever you say about "professional responsibility" you have to ask "Where 
does this stop?".
e.g. if you got a leaky fuel selector on ebay and put it in your airplane 
and the inspector didn't detect it, is he culpable?
if the inspector didn't detect that there's a layer of peel ply somewhere in 
the spar is he culpable?
if you crash your cirrus vfr into imc is Cirrus culpable for not 
reprogramming your neurons to realize that is not a smart thing to do?

While Michael Smith's description of the current defintion of 
legal/professional responsibility seems representative, it is also the death 
of freedom in so many ways.
The only way experimental aviation can survive is with a different standard, 
which I think Craig captured pretty well.

My apologies for being on the wrong side of this issue.

Colyn