Hey Steve, I swear that this isn't to start anything, but I saw this and had to chuckle. You can't make this stuff up!Originally Posted by steveinindy
"Kansas man struck by lightning hours after buying lottery tickets"
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sns-r...bref=obnetwork
BTW, He wasn't carrying a winning ticket.
No worries. You'll learn that I've got pretty thick skin on most things and given that I spend a lot of my time trying to teach people that long held beliefs in the GA pilot community about crash survivability are incorrect, what you said to me is actually fairly polite. At least you didn't spit at me like a couple of guys (friends of the pilot) did when I was helping a medical examiner look over a crashed experimental up in Michigan. After they realized why we were taking photos, notes and measurements, they mellowed out and I ended up having lunch with them.I apologize. I'll try not to firewall the throttle in our future exchanges.
I'm Al, BTW, good to meet you.
That sounds like a plan. I am hoping to attend next year. I've never been down for it. If you ever find yourself in the Indy area, you're also always welcome to meet up with my fiancee and I.If you're ever down here for Sun 'n Fun, lunch is on me.
LMAO. It's nice to know you have a well-developed sense of humor. I'll have to pass that one along to one of my previous research mentors (I got my start in research looking at lightning induced morbidity and mortality).Hey Steve, I swear that this isn't to start anything, but I saw this and had to chuckle. You can't make this stuff up!
"Kansas man struck by lightning hours after buying lottery tickets"
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sns-r...bref=obnetwork
BTW, He wasn't carrying a winning ticket.
Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.
"I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.
Well, I guess this got people talking! (some maybe even talking too much) Dana's post was great - my feelings on this exactly.
I am really excited to see how things go on this, although I bet it is going to take some work to get this passed. Is there anyone in the EAA we can contact to see if we can help? Somewhere on the EAA website I remember seeing a list of the people that are on the commitee to rewrite the laws. I wonder if it would help to contact some of them directly to show our support. Anyone know anyone to ask?
I'm curious to see what someone like maintenance expert Mike Busch thinks about this proposal. From a grass roots level would this be something best pushed from the chapter level? If so, would this fall under VP of chapters, Jeff Skiles? Would AOPA support this proposal? This might make a good forum topic for this summer at Oshkosh. Then the big question is how to get a sponsor at the FAA to write an NPRM. Anyone know how to create an NPRM?
It is important to understand that the FAA is not influenced by the number of comments, but rather by information offered to support the assertion that rules that allow an owner to sign off maintenance will provide an equivalent level of safety to the current rules (what J Mac M writes as "ELOS"). So organizing your EAA chapter to write letters will not really accelerate consideration or increase the likelihood of changes to the rules.
What might be a very interesting and constructive thing to do is to contact the companies who make the parts in your favorite airplane, and ask what training, online, books, classroom, etc., they will make available to you when, not if, owner maintenance becomes part of the FARs. I suggest that because the availability of "approved data" and training will be a part of the FAA's final rulemaking and pressuring the industry to support it now will have a much greater effect than writing "I vote in favor" letters to the FAA.
I will note that your hands can already do all of the work so long as you have a mechanic who will supervise and sign off the paperwork. So the rulemaking issue is really establishing that you can do the work and sign the logbook for more than the list of owner tasks currently in Part 43. I will suggest that the rulemaking will not endorse parts or work that does not meet today's standards for airworthiness. And bringing an airplane back from owner maintained to standard might involve either removing a bunch of stuff that you added, or going through the Field Approval process. Caution is advised.
Best of luck,
Wes
N78PS
With regard to the FARs, FAA legal writes NPRM's. Any US citizen can petition the FAA for a rule change, the how-to is spelled out in Part 11 of Title 14. It's still not clear if the proposal in the pdf. has been submitted anywhere. It may just be someone's manifesto as it's somewhat incomplete as an FAA petition in current form. It says 'proposal to the small aircraft ARC' but I have yet to find any kind of confirmation. Is the ARC reviewing the proposal? Does anyone know? I'd like to climb on board and offer support but I'm still at the station waiting for the train to show up.
Afther thinking about it, the toughest sell will likely be at the Transportation Secretary's office. It would be nice to get Huerta's opinon on such a rule proposal so after he is confirmed as Administrator and makes a public apperance at a general aviation event (like AirVenture), someone need to corner him with the question. Get a feel for what your up against.
And all of that is why we are members of EAA. The folks from OSH carry a lot more weight when they speak with all of us behind them rather than one of us speaking as an individual. Keep paying your dues and recruit all of your friends.
Best of luck,
Wes
N78PS
Where did this "proposal" come from?? I see no signatures or source or origin?
I think the owner maintenance proposal is nothing but wishful thinking at this point......
It may be Marty. But my thoughts are more like WLIU's. "Tilting a windmill or two" is what I expect from the organizations I belong to. Maybe it does not get through, but I would sure rather see an attempt at something made than to have people not try for fear of failing.
Beechboy - you said you were not sure how to start with this. Well, you already have. Express your opinion, get the word out. Maybe what was posted is not the perfect solution or presented in a form that the FAA expects - But if people can do it in Canada, then we should be able to do it here. Heck, we are like supposed to be land of the free right?
Somewhere, somehow we as a community have allowed the proverbial regulatory heat to be slowly turned up over time - it now seems in many ways that it is more about control than about safety. No matter what the historical reasons for it, I think most of us would agree that general aviation has been regulated to death. Something or maybe multiple things need to be done to "bend the curve" the other way if we want to avoid what has happened to general aviation in Europe.
Wishfull thinking... maybe Marty... but sign me up for that line thinkin. Although, I guess I could just register my airplane in Canada.. Land of the free ay
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote