|
I completely agree with Roger. The SID is not an AD.
Regrettably, I am among many who are having a "Chicken Little" reaction, thinking the sky is falling merely because somone wants to give SOME of us another hoop to jump through in order to get our treat (flying).
Since the jury is still out on the true validity of the concerns addressed in the SID, it is only fair that the judgement also be witheld on the veracity of the measure.
I am certainly NOT anti-government nor am I anti-regulation....heck, I am a former regulatOR.
I believe that a majority of their intent is to make things safe. But I am reluctant to participate in being governed by the protections of the lowest common denominator.....in essence, most laws and regulations exist to protect idiots and deprive them of the responcibility of good decision making and the consequences of bad decision making. The result is a theoretically safer populace that has been relieved of much of its decision making ability.
The path to hell is paved with good intentions.....and many of those intentions can be marketed (both genuinely or deceptively) as "safety".
I am a complete and thorough supporter of ANYTHING rationally improving safety. But if safety were my ONLY concern, I'd stay in bed.
I am confident that none of the regulators anticipate the SID becomeing an AD...nor do they anticipate the insurance underwriters using it as a criteria for coverage...and the NTSB will certainly never imply that failing to comply with a SID might have possibly contributed in some way to an accident (in the future) there-by casting a doubt on the responcibility and liability of the operator...and the under-informed community at-large would never use the existance of a SID to globally doubt (and thus devalue) an entire fleet of aircraft.......all without having even a single example of the "problem" actually existing.
Again, I am truely and genuinely concerned with safety. I love flying my SkyMaster. But I also want to go home at the end of the day...with my family...and not harm anyone else in the process either. I'd just really like to see some support to justify their sudden concern. You do that through a representative sampling of the fleet. Cessna should cover the burden of testing 10 ships with a history of being heavy-haulers or aerobatic ships (those most likely to have strained their spars). If they find PROOF of cause for concern...I'm on board! Not just on board; I'll put on the hat, pick up the puncher and become the conductor: "Tickets please."
Until then, it just kinda sounds like some engineer has a new toy and says: "Hey guys, you know we can use this to check for that and might find something someday."
If Cessna were to have approached it with a "Yall might wanna..." attitude, instead of "You must..." the reception would have been much different.
I'm a firm believer that the best place to stop encroachment....is at the curb....with a strong fence. Dont let them get a foot-hold.
No, I dont have a stock-pile of anything in a basement. No I dont wrap myself in a flag and claim violation of my rights or freedoms. But I would like it if those who CAN interfere in my life would just leave me the (heck) alone until they can substantiate their claims.
I know....I'm way too much of an FNG to be saying so much....especially with so much determination. But I feel quite strongly about allowing people to make decisions for themselves.
I do agree though that we should not propogate the idea that the SID will become an AD or anything else other than what we see on the horizon. Rampant speculation, and jumping at shadows accomplishes nothing but excited hysteria.
Wait and see....hope for the best...prepare for the worst....all that stuff.
Last rant (for a while)....I promise.
Cole
|