29 Apr 2024, 01:31 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: For the non-factory plane folks  Posted: 14 Feb 2017, 19:58 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 12/01/13
Posts: 115
Post Likes: +179
Location: DFW 1AR9
Aircraft: Experimental
|
|
|
I've always thought that a more accurate statement for E-AB aircraft would be ..."may not comply" rather than "does not comply".
My airplane has the required statement but I don't consider it entirely accurate as the person who created the placard above apparently felt.
Hey, it's the FAA after all...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: For the non-factory plane folks Posted: 15 Feb 2017, 14:47 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 11/03/08
Posts: 14587
Post Likes: +22981
Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If you exceed the standards, then you meet them, so the label is contradictory.
I like the thought of it, but I think it is against both the letter and spirit of the rule. A passenger has the right to understand the airplane is experimental and what that means.
Mike C. are MU2 passengers entitled to know they are riding in a machine so dangerous that it requires special government-mandated training to fly it legally ?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: For the non-factory plane folks Posted: 15 Feb 2017, 14:53 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If you exceed the standards, then you meet them, so the label is contradictory.
I like the thought of it, but I think it is against both the letter and spirit of the rule. A passenger has the right to understand the airplane is experimental and what that means.
Mike C. are MU2 passengers entitled to know they are riding in a machine so dangerous that it requires special government-mandated training to fly it legally ?
 
_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: For the non-factory plane folks Posted: 15 Feb 2017, 15:02 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 6088
Post Likes: +3381
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KPWA)
Aircraft: planeless
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If you exceed the standards, then you meet them, so the label is contradictory.
I like the thought of it, but I think it is against both the letter and spirit of the rule. A passenger has the right to understand the airplane is experimental and what that means.
Mike C. are MU2 passengers entitled to know they are riding in a machine so dangerous that it requires special government-mandated training to fly it legally ?
Bazinga
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: For the non-factory plane folks Posted: 15 Feb 2017, 15:23 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 03/17/08
Posts: 6081
Post Likes: +12532
Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
|
|
|
An airplanes insurance premium versus hull value and liability limits is about the best indication of how safe or dangerous and airplane is.....
RV's (including T/W) insure for the same rates as a C-172..... That is impressive....
_________________
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
MCW
Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: For the non-factory plane folks Posted: 15 Feb 2017, 17:12 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 6088
Post Likes: +3381
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KPWA)
Aircraft: planeless
|
|
Username Protected wrote: An airplanes insurance premium versus hull value and liability limits is about the best indication of how safe or dangerous and airplane is.....
RV's (including T/W) insure for the same rates as a C-172..... That is impressive.... That is an excellent point. I agree with Mike's point though in that that modifying the warning label shouldn't be legal.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: For the non-factory plane folks Posted: 16 Feb 2017, 01:09 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/03/10
Posts: 1562
Post Likes: +1781
Company: D&M Leasing Houston
Location: Katy, TX (KTME)
Aircraft: CitationV/C180
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If you exceed the standards, then you meet them, so the label is contradictory.
I like the thought of it, but I think it is against both the letter and spirit of the rule. A passenger has the right to understand the airplane is experimental and what that means.
Mike C. are MU2 passengers entitled to know they are riding in a machine so dangerous that it requires special government-mandated training to fly it legally ?
You mean like every plane that requires a type rating?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: For the non-factory plane folks Posted: 16 Feb 2017, 22:30 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 09/05/12
Posts: 6490
Post Likes: +4548
Location: Portland, OR (KHIO)
Aircraft: 1962 Bonanza P35
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Yeah......my heirs probably wouldn't want a jury to see that non-warning warning. If it's come to that I doubt this would tip the balance.
_________________
Paul
I heart flying
ABS Lifetime Member
EAA Lifetime Member
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: For the non-factory plane folks Posted: 17 Feb 2017, 21:19 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 07/13/11
Posts: 2763
Post Likes: +2183
Company: Aeronautical People Shuffler
Location: Picayune, MS (KHSA)
Aircraft: KA350/E55/DA-62
|
|
Username Protected wrote: are MU2 passengers entitled to know they are riding in a machine so dangerous that it requires special government-mandated training to fly it legally ? You mean like every plane that requires a type rating?
Momma said MU2 drivers are so ornery because they got all that speed, but still have to fly turbo prop arrivals
_________________
The sound of a second engine still running after the first engine fails is why I like having two.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: For the non-factory plane folks Posted: 18 Feb 2017, 12:38 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 02/16/09
Posts: 2980
Post Likes: +1883
Company: Cardinal Flyers
Location: Berkeley, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Cardinal RG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I've always thought that a more accurate statement for E-AB aircraft would be ..."may not comply" rather than "does not comply".
My airplane has the required statement but I don't consider it entirely accurate as the person who created the placard above apparently felt.
Hey, it's the FAA after all... Perhaps more succinctly, "has not been shown to comply" whether it does or doesn't... Paul
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|
