On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:40:48 GMT,
(Del Rawlins) wrote:

Why then, must the aircraft be placarded with a passenger warning that
states that it does NOT conform to federal safety standards? Yeah,
I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent, but it was my understanding
that if you are bound and determined to ignore standard practices,
that they still have to give you an experimental amateur built C of A
if you meet the requirements for it (paperwork, markings, 51%, etc).
They may cripple you with lousy operating limitations, but they have
to give you the certicate of airworthiness.

Comments?

Our EAA chapter had as our guest speaker during one of last winter's
meetings, the local DAR. He turned out to be old, crotchety,
cantankerous, outspoken and opinionated.

He began his talk by hammering home paperwork, paperwork, paperwork.
He spoke so long about it, and in such a doomsday manner that I feared
that would be ALL he'd speak about.

But eventually he began relating anecdotes. Among them was a story
about how he inspected a small single seat airplane (he mentioned the
name but I don't remember it now). It was a very simple airplane and
he thought it was extremely poorly put together and had a non aviation
type engine to boot. He tried to not grant him a C of A. But the guy
called his congressman, who shook the FAA tree, who called the DAR and
told him he WILL hand out the C of A to this guy.

So he did. But he required the maximum 40 hours of flight time for
testing and also categorically specified where this flying must take
place: over unpopulated land. He then told us that to his relief,
when the engine failed as he feared it would, the guy only killed a
cow, not a human being, when he put it down in a pasture. The pilot
survived.

Corky Scott