On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:27:31 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:


"Del Rawlins" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:39:22 -0500, "James M. Knox"

Rules vary from country to country (some require stage checks), but in
the US there is a final exam that must be passed. An examiner goes over
the plane (hopefully with a fine tooth comb) for anything that does not
look save and conform to safety standards. Only then do you get a
certificate to go flying.

Why then, must the aircraft be placarded with a passenger warning that
states that it does NOT conform to federal safety standards?
snip

'Cause you don't have a library full of FAA approved paperwork to show that
your manufacturing process and design were approved by the FAA. Doesn't mean
your airplane isn't be safer than a brand new factory built... Of course,
I've seen a few experimentals that looked like they had been assembled by
impatient 10 year olds...

All that is true, but if you will read the whole thing you will see
that I was using that to question James' assertion that the airplane
has to look safe and conform to safety standards, when neither is
required for an experimental amateur built C of A. I'm certainly not
arguing *against* good construction practices, I was just making the
point that the federales can't prevent you from killing yourself
through the lack of them.


================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply