On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:12:52 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Nobody said the FAA was going to properly correct the problem but that
is what the aim of the action is. The better way to correct the
problem would be to just have someone in OKC look through the
magazines and search the internet, find those operations that are in
violation, refuse the AW certificates of the next 3 aircraft that roll
out of their hanger and very publicly announce the action.

Ouch. Unless I'm missing something, that appears to advocate arbitrary and
capricious use of authority.

If all these alleged rich scoundrels are already skirting the law, there is
no need to change them, right? Do you really think it is wise to promote
and encourage changes to the laws that suddenly makes a victimless activity
a criminal activity? What if it were an activity you engaged in and someone
else was trying to make it illegal?

Excuse me? I specifically wrote that the better way was to enforce the
law as it is already written.

I don't see where you wrote that at all. You said: "... find those
operations that are in violation, refuse the AW certificates of the
next 3 aircraft that roll out of their hanger..."

Are you able to provide the specific language of any of "those
operations that are in violation" and publicly advertise such? The
implication in your comment is, that regardless of the aircrafts'
airworthiness, the FAA should reject them to make a point.

And to pick out companies or individuals for enforcement action who
are advertising a violation of the law is hardly arbitrary or capricious.

It's hardly likely that any companies or individuals are doing that
also.