X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:45:39 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-gh0-f171.google.com ([209.85.160.171] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 6038693 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:30:30 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.160.171; envelope-from=pjdmiller@gmail.com Received: by mail-gh0-f171.google.com with SMTP id r17so604305ghr.16 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:29:55 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.236.141.74 with SMTP id f50mr10594723yhj.73.1359646195069; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:29:55 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from pjdms-mbp.cfl.rr.com ([68.202.59.203]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x16sm8296553yhj.6.2013.01.31.07.29.53 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:29:53 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Accident rate for LOBO members vs non-members From: Paul Miller In-Reply-To: X-Original-Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:29:51 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Original-Message-Id: References: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Maybe I missed something. Who is asking/suggesting a SFAR for = Experimental on this list? What I'm reading/interpreting is that if = [LOBO] efforts can be organized to reduce the accident rate then the = chances for some action like an SFAR would probably decline (plus the = other benefits of fewer accidents). Sort of like "planning farther = forward" is my take. Paul Legacy (easy-to-fly version) On 2013-01-31, at 10:08 AM, "Lynn Farnsworth" = wrote: > some on the LML who seem to feel that the way to > solve the problems is to invite the "friendly FAA" =85 > I am very uncomfortable with the concept of an SFAR for = experimental... > - Kyrilian