Just as the homebuilt community is drawing scrutiny from the FAA over
professional builders of homebuilt airplanes, we find out that US
Senators are hiring builders to build homebuilt planes for them:

http://tinyurl.com/lbgc3

Earlier, rpellicciotti wrote:

> Just as the homebuilt community is drawing scrutiny from the FAA over
> professional builders of homebuilt airplanes, we find out that US
> Senators are hiring builders to build homebuilt planes for them:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lbgc3

Senators plural? Possible, I guess, but statistically unlikely. Anyhow,
quoting from the article:

> ...Finnerty said the plane, which he described
> as a "tail dragger," was built for the senator
> by a professional a few years ago...

Yup, smoking guns don't get much smokier...

After his Grumman Tiger shed its prop inflight in 1999, Inhofe
expressed interest in buying Stephan Wilkinson's Falco F.8L. Stephan
turned him down:

http://www.seqair.com/Hangar/Wilkinson/Inhofe/Inhofe.html

Bob K.

As a Canadian, this makes little to no difference to me but what, really is
wrong with pro builders. The planes are built better (in theory), there are
less uncompleted kits, people get rewarding work. I really don't see a
problem other than the rules forbid it, but rules can be adapted to reflect
reality.

"rpellicciotti" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Just as the homebuilt community is drawing scrutiny from the FAA over
> professional builders of homebuilt airplanes, we find out that US
> Senators are hiring builders to build homebuilt planes for them:

It's all about FREEDOM...the freedom to be governed to death. I tend
to agree with you but the infinate wisdom of those BurroCraps who
actually run this country want something to justify their miserable
existance and regulating us to death is their only function. I guess
we should be thankful to them for even allowing us to fly at all.


Dave wrote:
> As a Canadian, this makes little to no difference to me but what, really is
> wrong with pro builders. The planes are built better (in theory), there are
> less uncompleted kits, people get rewarding work. I really don't see a
> problem other than the rules forbid it, but rules can be adapted to reflect
> reality.
>
> "rpellicciotti" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Just as the homebuilt community is drawing scrutiny from the FAA over
> > professional builders of homebuilt airplanes, we find out that US
> > Senators are hiring builders to build homebuilt planes for them:

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> As a Canadian, this makes little to no difference to me but what, really
> is wrong with pro builders. The planes are built better (in theory), there
> are less uncompleted kits, people get rewarding work. I really don't see a
> problem other than the rules forbid it, but rules can be adapted to
> reflect reality.

1) It is against the rules.

2) As you say, rules can be changed.

3) In my opinion, there are few, if any, changes that could be made to the
rules governing amateur built aircraft that wouldn't have an adverse impact
on the people who follow the rules.

Wouldn't it be rotten if the FAA knee jerked the Amateur/Experimental rules
and screwed it up for everyone instead of enforcing the perfectly good rules
they already have in place?

KB

Dave wrote:
> As a Canadian, this makes little to no difference to me but what, really is
> wrong with pro builders. The planes are built better (in theory), there are
> less uncompleted kits, people get rewarding work. I really don't see a
> problem other than the rules forbid it, but rules can be adapted to reflect
> reality.

To break it down:

Certification rules came into place to safeguard the public, and also
boost confidence in aviation in general. Prior to the mid-1930's, you
DID NOT have any certainty that the plane you boarded wasn't going to
kill you, or people on the ground. If you don't like regulations, I
suggest you move to some place where there aren't any, like, say,
Somalia, and see how you like it. Or places where they're very loosely
enforced, like Nigeria, the former Soviet Union, Ghana, etc. Those
places have LOTS of freedom, and <sarcasm="Heavy"> EXCELLENT aviation
safety records.</sarcasm>

Experimental - Amateur Built came about during the Cold War,
effectively relaxing those rules, for EDUCATIONAL purposes. We were
worried the Russkies were ahead of us, building more bomb, more tanks,
more airplanes than we were. It was the Golden Age of Science, Math
AND, for the Not College Material crowd, Vocational Education. At the
time, experimentals were about where Light Sport Airplanes are today.
Relatively low powered, seating one or two. Not able to kill much more
than the builder and a buddy. And letting people build them - so the
argument lead - would be good for our Industrial Base to stem the
inexorable march of those pesky Marxist-Leninists.

So, relatively low risk, plus a potential public good. Enough to
offset the POTENTIAL risk inherent in relaxing the regulations.

The first half of that rationale - relatively low risk to the general
public - governed the Ultralight rules. The 254 lb limit is based on
Kinetic Energy considerations. Something that light can't hurt much.

Now we have turbine powered airplanes, up to 10 passengers, and pure
jets, capable of 300+ MPH. WHAT CONCEIVABLE PUBLIC GOOD DO SUCH
AIRPLANES SERVE, SUCH THAT WE SHOULD RELAX CERTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS!!!!!

How many people in this country have the money, the time and the skill
set to build, ON THEIR OWN, a Comp 10? And, asssuming such a person
exists (they probably do, but they can probably be censused on the
fingers of one hand), how will their building such a airplane serve the
purpose of strengthening our industrial base? Who's getting
"Educated"?

The reality is that a lot of the more sophisticated kit airplanes,
starting with the Swearingen SX-300 INVITE "hired guns". And the mix
of the profit motive with a mindset of "it's EXPERIMENTAL aviation, we
can do what we want" sounds to me like a recipe for trouble. "Have
your RV-10 built in MY shop, I can do it for less". Is that what we
want? 'Cause in a free market, capitalist society WITHOUT REGULATION,
that's what we'll get.

I actually think the way they do things in Great Britain makes much
sense. There are limits on what airplanes you can build, and a bit
more rigorous review of what IS allowed. The PFA has an excellent
safety record, and there is less incentive for hired guns, as the sort
of airplanes that ONLY rich doctors, lawyers, and senators are
interested in aren't allowed. (This sounds a little more absolute than
the truth - Most of the RV series, the Falco and Berkut, for example,
pretty hot ships, and known targets of Hired Guns, ARE allowed in
Great Britain).
http://www.pfa.org.uk/pdfs/Hombuilt%20List%20by%20Type.pdf

I'll tell you what I'd accept - building for hire, but the builder must
be the first Owner of Record, so the liability trail is clear. That
would give an incentive to do good work.

It's either that, or face PFA like restrictions on what we're allowed
to build. All it would take would be a Farrel's Ice Cream disaster
(for those with short memories, a privately owned F-86 ran off the
runway at Sacramento Exec, and plowed into an ice cream parlor full of
kids) to have the PUBLIC - not the bogeyman bureaucrats - demand
changes in our sport.
http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Sabrejet_crash_site.htm
http://www.news10.net/storyfull.asp?id=2623

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:21:21 GMT, "Dave" >
wrote:

>As a Canadian, this makes little to no difference to me but what, really is
>wrong with pro builders. The planes are built better (in theory), there are
>less uncompleted kits, people get rewarding work. I really don't see a
>problem other than the rules forbid it, but rules can be adapted to reflect
>reality.

In Canada the rules have been changed so you can legally use a hired
gun to build your plane. You better have deep pockets though.

"Drew Dalgleish" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:21:21 GMT, "Dave" >
> wrote:
>
>
> In Canada the rules have been changed so you can legally use a hired
> gun to build your plane. You better have deep pockets though.

I know that rules are different here, I just noted a fair amount of anger
about the concept of builders and figured that the rules weren't cast in
stone, why not update them. Then I got a long rant about Russia and commies,
go figure.

"flybynightkarmarepair" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dave wrote:
> > As a Canadian, this makes little to no difference to me but what, really
is
> > wrong with pro builders. The planes are built better (in theory), there
are
> > less uncompleted kits, people get rewarding work. I really don't see a
> > problem other than the rules forbid it, but rules can be adapted to
reflect
> > reality.
>
> To break it down:
>
> Certification rules came into place to safeguard the public, and also
> boost confidence in aviation in general. Prior to the mid-1930's, you
> DID NOT have any certainty that the plane you boarded wasn't going to
> kill you, or people on the ground. If you don't like regulations, I
> suggest you move to some place where there aren't any, like, say,
> Somalia, and see how you like it. Or places where they're very loosely
> enforced, like Nigeria, the former Soviet Union, Ghana, etc. Those
> places have LOTS of freedom, and <sarcasm="Heavy"> EXCELLENT aviation
> safety records.</sarcasm>
>
> Experimental - Amateur Built came about during the Cold War,
> effectively relaxing those rules, for EDUCATIONAL purposes. We were
> worried the Russkies were ahead of us, building more bomb, more tanks,
> more airplanes than we were. It was the Golden Age of Science, Math
> AND, for the Not College Material crowd, Vocational Education. At the
> time, experimentals were about where Light Sport Airplanes are today.
> Relatively low powered, seating one or two. Not able to kill much more
> than the builder and a buddy. And letting people build them - so the
> argument lead - would be good for our Industrial Base to stem the
> inexorable march of those pesky Marxist-Leninists.
>
> So, relatively low risk, plus a potential public good. Enough to
> offset the POTENTIAL risk inherent in relaxing the regulations.
>
> The first half of that rationale - relatively low risk to the general
> public - governed the Ultralight rules. The 254 lb limit is based on
> Kinetic Energy considerations. Something that light can't hurt much.
>
> Now we have turbine powered airplanes, up to 10 passengers, and pure
> jets, capable of 300+ MPH. WHAT CONCEIVABLE PUBLIC GOOD DO SUCH
> AIRPLANES SERVE, SUCH THAT WE SHOULD RELAX CERTIFICATION
> REQUIREMENTS!!!!!
>
> How many people in this country have the money, the time and the skill
> set to build, ON THEIR OWN, a Comp 10? And, asssuming such a person
> exists (they probably do, but they can probably be censused on the
> fingers of one hand), how will their building such a airplane serve the
> purpose of strengthening our industrial base? Who's getting
> "Educated"?
>
> The reality is that a lot of the more sophisticated kit airplanes,
> starting with the Swearingen SX-300 INVITE "hired guns". And the mix
> of the profit motive with a mindset of "it's EXPERIMENTAL aviation, we
> can do what we want" sounds to me like a recipe for trouble. "Have
> your RV-10 built in MY shop, I can do it for less". Is that what we
> want? 'Cause in a free market, capitalist society WITHOUT REGULATION,
> that's what we'll get.
>
> I actually think the way they do things in Great Britain makes much
> sense. There are limits on what airplanes you can build, and a bit
> more rigorous review of what IS allowed. The PFA has an excellent
> safety record, and there is less incentive for hired guns, as the sort
> of airplanes that ONLY rich doctors, lawyers, and senators are
> interested in aren't allowed. (This sounds a little more absolute than
> the truth - Most of the RV series, the Falco and Berkut, for example,
> pretty hot ships, and known targets of Hired Guns, ARE allowed in
> Great Britain).
> http://www.pfa.org.uk/pdfs/Hombuilt%20List%20by%20Type.pdf
>
> I'll tell you what I'd accept - building for hire, but the builder must
> be the first Owner of Record, so the liability trail is clear. That
> would give an incentive to do good work.
>
> It's either that, or face PFA like restrictions on what we're allowed
> to build. All it would take would be a Farrel's Ice Cream disaster
> (for those with short memories, a privately owned F-86 ran off the
> runway at Sacramento Exec, and plowed into an ice cream parlor full of
> kids) to have the PUBLIC - not the bogeyman bureaucrats - demand
> changes in our sport.
> http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Sabrejet_crash_site.htm
> http://www.news10.net/storyfull.asp?id=2623
>

C'mon Mr. Young, GET A LIFE!

The "hired gun" issue has been beaten to death and far beyond on this NG.

From the little that I've seen; Hired Guns allow a few well funded people,
who could not otherwise afford the time required, to have much greater
hands-on knowledge of the airplanes they fly. They also learn a large part
of a trade that interests them, and help to keep mechanics proficient and
employed when times are slow.

As to the jeaslousy issue: some of their airplanes will be prettier and
better equipped when they are judged at conventions. Learn to live with it.

As to differences from the Brittish Commonwealth, some things may have
changed. When I last knew anyone who kept up on such things; the precedures
to get a homebuilt signed off for normal operation were more stringent in
Australia, Republic of the Bahamas, and the United Kingdom--because each
homebuilt airplane received the equivalent of a type certificate. That was
a giant pain in the neck for local flying; but made international operations
much simpler.

Peter

Dave wrote:
> "Drew Dalgleish" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:21:21 GMT, "Dave" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > In Canada the rules have been changed so you can legally use a hired
> > gun to build your plane. You better have deep pockets though.
>
> I know that rules are different here, I just noted a fair amount of anger
> about the concept of builders and figured that the rules weren't cast in
> stone, why not update them. Then I got a long rant about Russia and commies,
> go figure.

IMHO, they need to be updated - sorry if I went on a bit. But it's a
historical fact that the rules we live under now in the USA WERE
enacted in a Cold War, Red Scare context. That WAS the Window of
Oppurtunity Neil Bogardus flew the Little Gee Bee through. Hired Guns
are WAY out of the concept that was advanced at the time, and if a
highly public disaster involving a Hired-Gun built airplane draws
enough attention to Homebuilding, we're ALL potentially in trouble.

I'm not against Hired Guns. When I was an active EAA member, there was
a guy in our chapter who at introductions would claim to be building a
BD-5. That ignored the four Lancair 4s in his hanger. He did
beautiful work in composites and aluminum; his skills were far in
excess of mine, and given the same airplane to build, I have no doubt
HIS would be safer.

But he's not the guy I'm worried about.

I'm not against the airplanes they build either. A fair percentage of
the most exciting, inspirational airplanes at airshows are built by
them.

I've GOT a life. There are two sets of plans on a couch in my front
hall, right behind my left shoulder is roll of .032 for fuel tanks, and
I had to clear off a pile of AN470 rivets off my son's desk last night
so he could do homework. (Yes, I'm divorced, but not because of
aviation <grinning>). Hired Guns (or to put a finer point on it, the
potential for cut-rate, slipshod operators in that field) are a
potential threat to that part of my life.

Better we, the Sport Aviation movement, get our own house in order,
than have external actors force changes down our throat, eh?

"flybynightkarmarepair" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>Hired Guns (or to put a finer point on it, the
> potential for cut-rate, slipshod operators in that field) are a
> potential threat to that part of my life.
>
> Better we, the Sport Aviation movement, get our own house in order,
> than have external actors force changes down our throat, eh?
>

I'm not sure you're speaking to me here as I never suggested you should "get
a life". I really did not get all the way through your post, I usually tune
out as soon as I read something akin to "if you don't like it, go somewhere
else" or "commie", posts seldom recover from that sort of thing.

Here in Canada we have classes of ownership that you are denied such as
owner maintenance and homebuilt. Both seem to be working out well enough.
The hired builder does not have to be any better or worse than the approved
mechanic, Lord knows there are enough shysters out there with all the
credentials you can obtain. Sadly the paper does not constitute any
guarantee.

flybynightkarmarepair wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
>>"Drew Dalgleish" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:21:21 GMT, "Dave" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>In Canada the rules have been changed so you can legally use a hired
>>>gun to build your plane. You better have deep pockets though.
>>
>>I know that rules are different here, I just noted a fair amount of anger
>>about the concept of builders and figured that the rules weren't cast in
>>stone, why not update them. Then I got a long rant about Russia and commies,
>>go figure.
>
>
> IMHO, they need to be updated - sorry if I went on a bit. But it's a
> historical fact that the rules we live under now in the USA WERE
> enacted in a Cold War, Red Scare context. That WAS the Window of
> Oppurtunity Neil Bogardus flew the Little Gee Bee through. have no doubt
> HIS would be safer.
>
I belive you mean George Bogardus

Jerry springer wrote:

> flybynightkarmarepair wrote:
>
>> Dave wrote:
>>
>>> "Drew Dalgleish" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:21:21 GMT, "Dave" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In Canada the rules have been changed so you can legally use a hired
>>>> gun to build your plane. You better have deep pockets though.
>>>
>>>
>>> I know that rules are different here, I just noted a fair amount of
>>> anger
>>> about the concept of builders and figured that the rules weren't
>>> cast in
>>> stone, why not update them. Then I got a long rant about Russia and
>>> commies,
>>> go figure.
>>
>>
>>
>> IMHO, they need to be updated - sorry if I went on a bit. But it's a
>> historical fact that the rules we live under now in the USA WERE
>> enacted in a Cold War, Red Scare context. That WAS the Window of
>> Oppurtunity Neil Bogardus flew the Little Gee Bee through. have no doubt
>> HIS would be safer.
>>
> I belive you mean George Bogardus

Some additional information can be found here on George's The Little
Gee Bee. http://www.eaa105.org/History/history.htm the restoration
on the little Gee Bee is now pretty much complete and it is setting in
Van's hangar. in the url is some good early information about Van as
well and the history of his first RV-3. There is even a picture of me
standing by my old VW powered Mini Coupe, man I was skinny in the early
70's.

Jerry

Jerry springer wrote:
> flybynightkarmarepair wrote:

> > But it's a
> > historical fact that the rules we live under now in the USA WERE
> > enacted in a Cold War, Red Scare context. That WAS the Window of
> > Oppurtunity Neil Bogardus flew the Little Gee Bee through.
> >
> I belive you mean George Bogardus

Right!

More here: http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/story.HTM

Key graf: "Prior to the war, reaction against homebuilt aircraft had
caused them to be banned in every state except Oregon. Bogardus wanted
the CAA to implement a new certification category that would overrule
the state limitations."

Getting the Hired Gun house in order will hopefully avoid another
reaction, this time on the national level.

On 8 Oct 2006 10:05:03 -0700, "flybynightkarmarepair" >
wrote:

>
>Jerry springer wrote:
>> flybynightkarmarepair wrote:
>
>> > But it's a
>> > historical fact that the rules we live under now in the USA WERE
>> > enacted in a Cold War, Red Scare context. That WAS the Window of
>> > Oppurtunity Neil Bogardus flew the Little Gee Bee through.
>> >
>> I belive you mean George Bogardus
>
>Right!
>
>More here: http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/story.HTM
>
>Key graf: "Prior to the war, reaction against homebuilt aircraft had
>caused them to be banned in every state except Oregon. Bogardus wanted
>the CAA to implement a new certification category that would overrule
>the state limitations."
>
>Getting the Hired Gun house in order will hopefully avoid another
>reaction, this time on the national level.

Although I can't afford to hire some one to build for me, I don't see
a so called "hired gun" any different than purchasing a used home
built. One of the main reasons for building is being able to do your
own maintenance. Whether you hire one built or purchase used you do
not have that option. Purchasing used or having some one build it for
you comes with a lot of drawbacks. You can't do your own maintenance
and quite a few FBOs don't want to work on them.

As I see it, the hired gun approach is expensive. The owner is going
to spend nearly as much if not more than they would for a certificated
plane and probably have more capabilities than they could buy.

The Comp10 was listed earlier. Building something like that is not
much different than building a Glasair or Lancair, but probably more
like the two and 4 seat glasair bush plane (forgot the name). I'd
*guess* it'd probably be easier than the G-III and probably the
Lancair 320-360, and IV series.

Bigger doesn't necessarily mean more difficult to build, particularly
when it's over a steel tube frame. I never have figured out why any
one would want to built a comp 10 except as a conversation piece.
<:-)) The 6-place with a PT-6 and the rear seats thrown out could be
a lot of fun though.

Now the issue of the hired gun itself: Does any one have any
statistics on just how many have gone beyond the basic builder's
center help?
I doubt it's many.

I strongly believe the week or two basic builder's center help is
something every first time builder should take advantage of "If they
can afford it" because in those two weeks they'll learn all the basic
techniques to do a good job and put them to use.

Me? Something like that could have saved me many hours of trial and
error learning and yes, I'm building one of those aerobatic capable
hot rods. There is an unofficial POH and I've had one of them pulling
3 1/2 to 4 Gs at the listed Vne, not Va. I know that particular plane
had been tested far beyond what I was doing so I was not concerned.
Chip Beck used to enter the vertical 8 (one loop on top of the other)
way over that listed Vne and he was pulling far more Gs than I. <:-))
OTOH he has a lot more skill too.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Jerry springer wrote:
> Some additional information can be found here on George's The Little
> Gee Bee. http://www.eaa105.org/History/history.htm the restoration
> on the little Gee Bee is now pretty much complete and it is setting in
> Van's hangar. in the url is some good early information about Van as
> well and the history of his first RV-3. There is even a picture of me
> standing by my old VW powered Mini Coupe, man I was skinny in the early
> 70's.

It looks like there is a real good article in the April/May 2006 Air
and Space Magazine on George and the Little Gee Bee.
http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2006/april-may/beltway.php
I'll check it out at the library and report back.

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:29:41 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:

> Although I can't afford to hire some one to build for me, I don't see
> a so called "hired gun" any different than purchasing a used home
> built. One of the main reasons for building is being able to do your
> own maintenance. Whether you hire one built or purchase used you do
> not have that option.

Not quite true. Anyone can *maintain* a homebuilt aircraft. The annual
condition inspection, however, must be performed by a qualified individual (A&P
or the Repairman Certificate for that aircraft).

The biggest problem in the "hired gun" building is the perjury that is entailed
if the owner certifies it in the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The FAA
needs a new subcategory equivalent to Amateur-Built...."Custom-Built" or some
similar verbiage. No 51% rule, no Repairman Certificates, maintenance can be
performed by owner, annuals must be by A&P.

Manufacturer's name on the registration to be listed as the actual name (e.g.,
no corporations or other liability dodges) of the primary builder. If certified
parts are used, they have full AD vulnerability. If a non-certified engine is
used, again, the builder's name is listed as the engine manufacturer.

I'd couple this with some additional restrictions on Experimental Amateur-Built
to force things back to Education/Recreation. Maybe scale back some of the
recent 51% rule interpretations. Maybe eliminate turbine engines,
turbochargers, and pressurization, or just limit them to planes of two seats or
less.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:29:41 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)" >
wrote:
>
> > Although I can't afford to hire some one to build for me, I don't see
> > a so called "hired gun" any different than purchasing a used home
> > built. One of the main reasons for building is being able to do your
> > own maintenance. Whether you hire one built or purchase used you do
> > not have that option.
>
> Not quite true. Anyone can *maintain* a homebuilt aircraft. The annual
> condition inspection, however, must be performed by a qualified individual
(A&P
> or the Repairman Certificate for that aircraft).
>
> The biggest problem in the "hired gun" building is the perjury that is
entailed
> if the owner certifies it in the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The
FAA
> needs a new subcategory equivalent to Amateur-Built...."Custom-Built" or
some
> similar verbiage. No 51% rule, no Repairman Certificates, maintenance can
be
> performed by owner, annuals must be by A&P.
>
> Manufacturer's name on the registration to be listed as the actual name
(e.g.,
> no corporations or other liability dodges) of the primary builder. If
certified
> parts are used, they have full AD vulnerability. If a non-certified
engine is
> used, again, the builder's name is listed as the engine manufacturer.
>
> I'd couple this with some additional restrictions on Experimental
Amateur-Built
> to force things back to Education/Recreation. Maybe scale back some of
the
> recent 51% rule interpretations. Maybe eliminate turbine engines,
> turbochargers, and pressurization, or just limit them to planes of two
seats or
> less.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Actually, IIRC, an owner can /maintain/ a certified aircraft as well. There
is a pubished list of approved owner performed maintenance steps--provided
that the appropriate parts, tools, manuals, and procedures are used.
However, in the case of type cerficicated aircraft, a mechanic with IA must
inspect and sign-off repairs and periodic condition inspections--and a
professional mechanic or apprentice /usually/ performs the work as well.

I see no reason to change the current interpretation of the 51% rule,
requiring the /builder/ to gain and demonstrate proficiency and successfull
completion of 51% of the work steps. IMHO, most of the griping has little
to do with safety and much to do with jealousy. Therefore, I say "get over
it."

Peter

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> The biggest problem in the "hired gun" building is the perjury that is entailed
> if the owner certifies it in the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The FAA
> needs a new subcategory equivalent to Amateur-Built...."Custom-Built" or some
> similar verbiage. No 51% rule, no Repairman Certificates, maintenance can be
> performed by owner, annuals must be by A&P.

Like ELSA without the LSA restrictions.

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 10:32:31 -0400, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> Actually, IIRC, an owner can /maintain/ a certified aircraft as well. There
> is a pubished list of approved owner performed maintenance steps--provided
> that the appropriate parts, tools, manuals, and procedures are used.
> However, in the case of type cerficicated aircraft, a mechanic with IA must
> inspect and sign-off repairs and periodic condition inspections--and a
> professional mechanic or apprentice /usually/ performs the work as well.

The owner of a certified aircraft can perform *certain* tasks with no
supervision or other signoff...the list of preventative maintenance tasks
spelled out in Appendix A of 14CFR Part 43. As you say, the owner can perform
any other maintenance task as well, but the aircraft cannot be flown until a
certified individual takes responsibility for the work.

In contrast, no such signoff is needed for a homebuilt. Anyone can perform major
alterations and repairs and return the aircraft to service. I can (and have...)
do work like removing an engine cylinder or replace major airframe components on
a homebuilt and signed off the work myself. The only thing I have to be
concerned about is whether the A&P performing the annual condition inspection
(up to a year later) will consider the airplane still airworthy.

The amount of difference this makes depends on one's individual circumstances.
Some owners have good friends who are A&Ps. To them, there's little difference
between Experimental and Certified, other than the need to use approved parts.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 10:32:31 -0400, "Peter Dohm" >
wrote:
>
> > Actually, IIRC, an owner can /maintain/ a certified aircraft as well.
There
> > is a pubished list of approved owner performed maintenance
steps--provided
> > that the appropriate parts, tools, manuals, and procedures are used.
> > However, in the case of type cerficicated aircraft, a mechanic with IA
must
> > inspect and sign-off repairs and periodic condition inspections--and a
> > professional mechanic or apprentice /usually/ performs the work as well.
>
> The owner of a certified aircraft can perform *certain* tasks with no
> supervision or other signoff...the list of preventative maintenance tasks
> spelled out in Appendix A of 14CFR Part 43. As you say, the owner can
perform
> any other maintenance task as well, but the aircraft cannot be flown until
a
> certified individual takes responsibility for the work.
>
> In contrast, no such signoff is needed for a homebuilt. Anyone can perform
major
> alterations and repairs and return the aircraft to service. I can (and
have...)
> do work like removing an engine cylinder or replace major airframe
components on
> a homebuilt and signed off the work myself. The only thing I have to be
> concerned about is whether the A&P performing the annual condition
inspection
> (up to a year later) will consider the airplane still airworthy.
>
> The amount of difference this makes depends on one's individual
circumstances.
> Some owners have good friends who are A&Ps. To them, there's little
difference
> between Experimental and Certified, other than the need to use approved
parts.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I agree with you about the general rules regarding major repair of a
homebuilt. However, the issue of major alteration is another story which
depends upon whether the alteration would change the operating limitations.
That, in turn, opens multiple cans of worms.

The difference between certified and amateur-built can certainly be trivial
for non-revenue day-VFR. At the other extreme, the two categories can vary
wildly (or not) for night-IFR. If you use a certified combination of engine
and propeller, standard engineering and configuration practices, and
exemplary workmanship; then including single-engine night-IFR in the
operating limitations should be much easier than might otherwise be the
case.

I really do like some of the engine conversions, as long as the claims are
realistic, so I really don't want to get into a rant on either side of the
subject. I can see some sound arguments on both sides--just as I can on the
canard issue, plastic and glass versus metal, and a few others.

Peter

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> The amount of difference this makes depends on one's individual circumstances.
> Some owners have good friends who are A&Ps. To them, there's little difference
> between Experimental and Certified, other than the need to use approved parts.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

And if the A&P is a really good friend, the need for approved parts goes
away, too. There's a certain C-150 in central North Carolina for sale
that has an annual suffering from pencil whiplash. The lawnmower
battery is from Sears. All those extra rivets in the empenage probably
are, too.

A friend bought the plane, but wasn't present for the pre-buy annual
done by Bud "somthin-or-'nother", who runs a shop just over the Virginia
line. He had it inspected again by a local A&P when all the brake fluid
automatically drained the first time he flew it. Tom not only declared
it woefully unairworthy, but a complete basket case.

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:59:11 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:29:41 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>
>> Although I can't afford to hire some one to build for me, I don't see
>> a so called "hired gun" any different than purchasing a used home
>> built. One of the main reasons for building is being able to do your
>> own maintenance. Whether you hire one built or purchase used you do
>> not have that option.
>
>Not quite true. Anyone can *maintain* a homebuilt aircraft. The annual
>condition inspection, however, must be performed by a qualified individual (A&P
>or the Repairman Certificate for that aircraft).
>
>The biggest problem in the "hired gun" building is the perjury that is entailed
>if the owner certifies it in the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The FAA
>needs a new subcategory equivalent to Amateur-Built...."Custom-Built" or some
>similar verbiage. No 51% rule, no Repairman Certificates, maintenance can be
>performed by owner, annuals must be by A&P.
>
>Manufacturer's name on the registration to be listed as the actual name (e.g.,
>no corporations or other liability dodges) of the primary builder. If certified
>parts are used, they have full AD vulnerability. If a non-certified engine is
>used, again, the builder's name is listed as the engine manufacturer.
>

Separating them out makes sense, but I'd make it anything goes as to
what can be Experimental Amateur-built. If I were 30 years younger and
still working at a good job I'd want to build something akin to the
Javelin on steroids. Maybe a Legend to start. It 's a personal
preference but I just don't have any interest in light, sport, or
anything less than the G-III and the thought of something like a
Javelin on steroids with a pair of kerosene burners and a large enough
size to carry enough fuel to cover a useful distance.

Maybe a twin with diesel engines on each side developing about 1000 HP
each. Hey, I have a daughter living in the Colorado Rockies and a son
just NE of Atlanta.

>I'd couple this with some additional restrictions on Experimental Amateur-Built
>to force things back to Education/Recreation. Maybe scale back some of the
>recent 51% rule interpretations. Maybe eliminate turbine engines,

I want bigger engines and suborbital at least.<:-)) (and I'm serious)
As long as it has two seats that's enough for me as I doubt I'd find
any one who'd want to go along. I have that problem now if I'm
heading for the practice area and those are the normal maneuvers we
had to do to get the ticket. Well, normal to me as steep turns were 60
degrees when I was a student.

To me airplanes are for play and I'd put every cent into playing I
could and I do like to build so I'd hate to be held back as to what I
could build...now all I need is the money and some genetic engineering
to get rid of about 40 years, or gain another 40 on my life. And I'd
prefer to gain that youth without the senility.

I've often said, I need five lifetimes just to do the things I what in
this one.

>turbochargers, and pressurization, or just limit them to planes of two seats or
>less.
>
>Ron Wanttaja
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:27:34 -0700, Richard Riley >
wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:59:11 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> > wrote:
> >
> >The biggest problem in the "hired gun" building is the perjury that is entailed
> >if the owner certifies it in the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The FAA
> >needs a new subcategory equivalent to Amateur-Built...."Custom-Built" or some
> >similar verbiage. No 51% rule, no Repairman Certificates, maintenance can be
> >performed by owner, annuals must be by A&P.
> >
> >Manufacturer's name on the registration to be listed as the actual name (e.g.,
> >no corporations or other liability dodges) of the primary builder. If certified
> >parts are used, they have full AD vulnerability. If a non-certified engine is
> >used, again, the builder's name is listed as the engine manufacturer.
>
> I don't think the "no corporations" rule would have the effect you
> want. A "custom built" plane would almost certainly have more than
> one person working on it, if there's enough volume to justify the
> system. The people in charge of building would hire someone poor
> (and maybe foreign) to be listed as the builder.

My thought would be to set things up so that the person(s) who built the
aircraft were clearly identified. Not necessary a "no corporations" clause, but
something to minimize the use of dummy corporations to slough off the liability
for their work. There have been cases where the product of the hired gun has
been pure crap.

It might just entail having the FAA inspector verify the status of the primary
builder or corporation as part of the certification process. Since this
category would be specifically for commercial use, have the FAA add a fee for
doing this checking.

Ron Wanttaja