>Thanks for the clarification. I've been offered a "builder assistance slot"
>where I go to an experienced Glastar builder's workshop. He's set himself
>up with precision jigs and fixtures for the purpose of speeding other
>builders' Glastar construction. I would be getting a thorough education in
>all aspects of the contruction while participating in the manual work to
>FAA requirements. This kind of build apparently meets the spirit and letter
>of the law per OSH discussions, and ought to be encouraged it seems to me.
I should clarify that the discussions I mentioned were simply
that . . . a gathering of interested, critical thinkers who were
trying to balance the public good with the builder's needs.
How your favorite bureaucrat chooses to interpret and apply
the FARs is entirely another matter. This is why getting your
man on board early is important.
An equally important aspect of dealing with regulators is to
exude confidence in what you're doing . . . it's an extension
of the old saw, "never ask a bureaucrat a question until you
already know the answer." The first and only time I walked into
an FAA office asking what was necessary to satisfy a "requirement"
I got the book thrown at me. The next time I went in with a plan
and good engineering rational for the proposal. My workload to
complete the task was probably half of the first.
However you choose to get your airplane put together, the goal
is not to add up a bunch of logged hours and claim compliance to
the 51% rule. Rather to have enough documentation and display
of personal confidence that the regulator is convinced you
know what you're doing. They say dogs smell fear. Well, regulators
smell ignorance and uncertainty . . . too much suggestion of either
can trigger an inquisition.
>I'll be signing up for your electronics course in Northern California. I've
>been reading your articles. You issued a challenge to find errors in your
>statements. I've been looking hard but haven't found any errors yet. (A
>couple of "matters of opinion," maybe).
Thank you . . . but keep a sharp lookout. Many folk perceive my signature
banner to be a bit pompous. I have to acknowlege that I am the originator
of very little what I've learned over the years. If I take on the
task of sharing that knowledge, I have an obligation to be ready to
question everything, no matter how long it's been "acceptable" as fact.
Folks on these list servers are very important to the critical review
effort.
> . . . . . You do a good job of refuting a lot
>of mythology that's grown up around electronics design and construction. (I
>do in general electronics what you do in aviation electronics).
It's sad to realize how many of the laws of physics get rewritten to
accomodate some theory. Worse yet to observe how may effects are
erroneously or weakly linked to some causation. My years of work with
Ken Razak in the accident analysis business has been a real asset;
one of our most important tasks was to analyze and debunk bad science
in the other side's "experts" . . . a very useful skill indeed.
Bob . . .
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
< Go ahead, make my day . . . . >
< Show me where I'm wrong. >
|