Professionally built?

[es330td]

I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says
"Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not
have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to
be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

es330td wrote:
> I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says
> "Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not
> have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to
> be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA?

If it is really built for anything other than the education and
entertainment of the builder it is illegal. There is nothing in the regs
though that would stop an A&P from building for education and entertainment
and then selling it.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Nov 27, 12:32 pm, es330td > wrote:
> I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says
> "Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not
> have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to
> be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA?

"Professionally Built" isn't a problem for Experimental aircraft. Many
aircraft were so built and subequently issued Experimental Racing and
Experimental Exhibition special airworthiness certificates.

However, it can be a big problem for an aircraft issued an
Experimental Amateur-Built special airworthiness certificate. The
rules are pretty clear that the major part of such aircraft are to be
constructed by folks who undertook the work solely for the purposes of
education and entertainment, that is, without money changing hands.
The word "Professional" implies here, as it does in the sports world,
financial transactions that likely violate the spirit if not the
letter of the Amateur-Built rules.

In at least one prior case, the FAA has moved a non-"51% rule"
aircraft out of Amateur-Built and into Racing or Exhibition. While
this is a relative non-issue for a glider or a single-seat acro
airplane, the additional operating limitations and Program Letter
requirements can put a huge onerous kink in your plans for a four-seat
cruiser.

Checking the controller.com site, I find not one but three Lancairs
that claim "professional construction," and at least one of those
lists a corporate entity as the manufacturer. Hopefully it's a non-
profit corporation...

I'm thinking that the sellers might be folks who haven't observed that
the FAA seems to have been cracking down on hired gunmanship, and that
they seem to be using sport aviation publications and circulars to do
it.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Bob Kuykendall > said:
>Checking the controller.com site, I find not one but three Lancairs
>that claim "professional construction," and at least one of those
>lists a corporate entity as the manufacturer. Hopefully it's a non-
>profit corporation...
>
>I'm thinking that the sellers might be folks who haven't observed that
>the FAA seems to have been cracking down on hired gunmanship, and that
>they seem to be using sport aviation publications and circulars to do
>it.

Or maybe they want to unload it before the FAA gets to them.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
I'm a person who can't understand why everyone in the entire nation
doesn't look up, realise that George W Bush is their president, and not
immediately throw up in their mouths. Shows what I know. - Harry Teasley

[Peter Dohm]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 27, 12:32 pm, es330td > wrote:
>> I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says
>> "Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not
>> have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to
>> be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA?
>
> "Professionally Built" isn't a problem for Experimental aircraft. Many
> aircraft were so built and subequently issued Experimental Racing and
> Experimental Exhibition special airworthiness certificates.
>
> However, it can be a big problem for an aircraft issued an
> Experimental Amateur-Built special airworthiness certificate. The
> rules are pretty clear that the major part of such aircraft are to be
> constructed by folks who undertook the work solely for the purposes of
> education and entertainment, that is, without money changing hands.
> The word "Professional" implies here, as it does in the sports world,
> financial transactions that likely violate the spirit if not the
> letter of the Amateur-Built rules.
>
> In at least one prior case, the FAA has moved a non-"51% rule"
> aircraft out of Amateur-Built and into Racing or Exhibition. While
> this is a relative non-issue for a glider or a single-seat acro
> airplane, the additional operating limitations and Program Letter
> requirements can put a huge onerous kink in your plans for a four-seat
> cruiser.
>
> Checking the controller.com site, I find not one but three Lancairs
> that claim "professional construction," and at least one of those
> lists a corporate entity as the manufacturer. Hopefully it's a non-
> profit corporation...
>
> I'm thinking that the sellers might be folks who haven't observed that
> the FAA seems to have been cracking down on hired gunmanship, and that
> they seem to be using sport aviation publications and circulars to do
> it.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

From all I've read, the "51% Rule" is "clear as mud."

The owner/builder/applicant must have learned/demonstrated 51% of the
necessary tasks to assemble/build the aircraft. That might leave room for a
fascinating variety of imaginative interpretations.

Generally, I have read that the owner/builder/applicant should have
personally built/constructed at least one of 51% of the diferent items
specifically built for the aircraft. In other words; bolts, washers, and
rivets would not count. OTOH; ribs, gussets, and rivets that have been
pulled/driven would count.

Just because I intend to build it myself does not mean that it is required
by anything other than personal pride ... and bull-headedness.

Obviously, opinions vary and the issue is not likely to be fully resolved in
any of our lifetimes.

Peter
Just my $0.02

[Maxwell]

"es330td" > wrote in message
...
>I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says
> "Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not
> have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to
> be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA?

I have no idea who is selling the aircraft you mention, but "professionally
built" is often just a buzz word used in attempt to say the builder of the
particular aircraft was "special" compared to most. I have seen this stated
because an A&P had built the aircraft. He felt it was professionally built
because he works on aircraft every day for a living. As opposed to an
experimental that has been built by a postal worker, lawyer, doctor, etc. I
think the main thing to remember is when it comes to what you will be
receiving, it might not mean zip! The quality of every experimental airplane
comes down to the skill, integrity and interest in "whoever" built it, and
has little to do with what they do for a living. Just think of it as a
laundry detergent that is "new and improved", or "fortified", etc. You know
the drill. Walk through a supermarket.

[Ron Natalie]

es330td wrote:
> I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says
> "Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not
> have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to
> be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA?

The words PROFESSIONAL and AMATEUR are not mutually exclusive.
Get a dictionary.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:06:28 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>

>
>From all I've read, the "51% Rule" is "clear as mud."
>
>The owner/builder/applicant must have learned/demonstrated 51% of the
>necessary tasks to assemble/build the aircraft. That might leave room for a
>fascinating variety of imaginative interpretations.
>
>Generally, I have read that the owner/builder/applicant should have
>personally built/constructed at least one of 51% of the diferent items
>specifically built for the aircraft. In other words; bolts, washers, and
>rivets would not count. OTOH; ribs, gussets, and rivets that have been
>pulled/driven would count.
>

many years ago a judge was making a determination in a case where he
needed to establish whether the chap had an interest in an aircraft.
as i recall a feature in the case was proven if the guy had built most
of the aircraft. the judge made an off the cuff decision that if the
chap had built more than half his case was accepted.
a deciding majority legally is 51%.

51% has actually no more significance than something established as
part of a case many years ago.

what is actually required is structurally safe aircraft.

the fact that 51% has taken such hold in the environment is just
nonsense. The FAA should really get some focus back in the
environment.

"51%" is a silly distraction in the world of aviation safety.

Stealth Pilot

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Maxwell" > wrote:

> "es330td" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says
> > "Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not
> > have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to
> > be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA?
>
> I have no idea who is selling the aircraft you mention, but "professionally
> built" is often just a buzz word used in attempt to say the builder of the
> particular aircraft was "special" compared to most. I have seen this stated
> because an A&P had built the aircraft. He felt it was professionally built
> because he works on aircraft every day for a living. As opposed to an
> experimental that has been built by a postal worker, lawyer, doctor, etc. I
> think the main thing to remember is when it comes to what you will be
> receiving, it might not mean zip! The quality of every experimental airplane
> comes down to the skill, integrity and interest in "whoever" built it, and
> has little to do with what they do for a living. Just think of it as a
> laundry detergent that is "new and improved", or "fortified", etc. You know
> the drill. Walk through a supermarket.

The "professionally built" term really doesn't amount to a hill of
beans. A friend here bought a Harmon Rocket that an A&P built. The metal
work was good, but the engine installation was very poor. I coined the
term "flyable but not airworthy" to describe the plane as purchased.

He could not maintain cruise power in vevel flight without overtemping
the oil. Our "Spruce Creek Skunk Works" took on the job of sorting it
out.

What we found (and corrected):

1. The oil cooler had insufficient airflow (both in and out). Remember
-- any cooling MUST provide an exit path for the air, as well as an
entry path. This installaltion had neither.

2. There was no blockage of cooling air in the nose bowl behind the
spinner, allowing air to exit behind the spinner. We installed the
appropriate baffles and seals there.

3. The air entering the cowling inlets passed over a sharp lip behind
the inlets. We added some internal fairing to the inlets.

4. Baffle seals were poorly thought out, allowing air to leak out the
top of the baffles, rather than passing over the cylinder fins.

5. Exhaust pipes were cantilevered, creating the opportunity for fatigue
failure. We added some support to reduce stress there.

6. The owner had the pipes ceramic coated, both inside and out, to
reduce heat transfer into the engine compartment. IMHO, it is more
important to coat the INSIDE of an exhaust pipe than the outside -- to
reduce heat transfer into the metal.

Result: The plane runs cool and FAST!

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Peter Dohm wrote:
>
> Just because I intend to build it myself does not mean that it is
> required by anything other than personal pride ... and bull-
> headedness.
> Obviously, opinions vary and the issue is not likely to be fully
> resolved in any of our lifetimes.

The 51% rule isn't really what's in question here. It's the "education and
entertainment" clause of the rule. While I agree that too is clear as mud it
wouldn't take the FAA long to notify it DARs and FSDO to just stop issuing
AW certs to someone.

No fine needed. Somebody invests $100K in a plane they think is they are
going to sell as soon as they finish.

I have a friend that bought an RV-8 from a "professional builder." The Hobbs
and log showed a little over 40 hours and that it was out of phase 1
testing. On the way home from Chicago the engine died in flight. My friend
landed the aircraft in a field with no damage.

He had an A&P from the local airport come out and look at it and after
various items made the A&P believe that the plane had less than 10 hours on
it. A look through the memory of the EIS supported this. My friend had his
lawyer call the builder and explain that the check had had a stop pay put on
it and that the plane was at and airport in Missouri and that if my friend
ever heard from him again that the FAA would be notified of the issues. He
never heard from the builder again.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Orval Fairbairn > said:
>What we found (and corrected):
>
>1. The oil cooler had insufficient airflow (both in and out). Remember
>-- any cooling MUST provide an exit path for the air, as well as an
>entry path. This installaltion had neither.
>
>2. There was no blockage of cooling air in the nose bowl behind the
>spinner, allowing air to exit behind the spinner. We installed the
>appropriate baffles and seals there.

[etc]

Ok, this is where I get confused. I'm not a builder (yet). Don't the
plans or kit instructions tell you how to do all this? Do people diverge
that much from the plans, and if so, why?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Microsoft: bringing the world to your desktop -- and your desktop to
the world.
-- Peter Gutmann

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

>
> Ok, this is where I get confused. I'm not a builder (yet). Don't the
> plans or kit instructions tell you how to do all this? Do people
> diverge that much from the plans, and if so, why?

On many if not most kits the FWF instructions is not as nearly as complete
as the airframe instructions/plans. One reason for this is simple, The kit
maker also has little to do with the engine used in a lot of planes. For
example in the Zenith 601XL there are people that have installed multiple
flavors of Conts & Lycs, and Rotaxs, Jabirus, Subaru's, Corvairs, Suzukis,
and even Harley Davidsons.

[es330td]

On Nov 28, 7:40 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
> The words PROFESSIONAL and AMATEUR are not mutually exclusive.
> Get a dictionary.

Ok, I did.

You're right, someone could be an amateur as in experienced while
doing something for hire as opposed to doing it for personal
achievement and satisfaction. For home builts planes, I'm sure it is
"buyer beware" anyway.

[Maxwell]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
->
> The "professionally built" term really doesn't amount to a hill of
> beans. A friend here bought a Harmon Rocket that an A&P built. The metal
> work was good, but the engine installation was very poor. I coined the
> term "flyable but not airworthy" to describe the plane as purchased.
>
> He could not maintain cruise power in vevel flight without overtemping
> the oil. Our "Spruce Creek Skunk Works" took on the job of sorting it
> out.
>
> What we found (and corrected):
>
> 1. The oil cooler had insufficient airflow (both in and out). Remember
> -- any cooling MUST provide an exit path for the air, as well as an
> entry path. This installaltion had neither.
>
> 2. There was no blockage of cooling air in the nose bowl behind the
> spinner, allowing air to exit behind the spinner. We installed the
> appropriate baffles and seals there.
>
> 3. The air entering the cowling inlets passed over a sharp lip behind
> the inlets. We added some internal fairing to the inlets.
>
> 4. Baffle seals were poorly thought out, allowing air to leak out the
> top of the baffles, rather than passing over the cylinder fins.
>
> 5. Exhaust pipes were cantilevered, creating the opportunity for fatigue
> failure. We added some support to reduce stress there.
>
> 6. The owner had the pipes ceramic coated, both inside and out, to
> reduce heat transfer into the engine compartment. IMHO, it is more
> important to coat the INSIDE of an exhaust pipe than the outside -- to
> reduce heat transfer into the metal.
>
> Result: The plane runs cool and FAST!

Very good example Orval. The phrase might mean a lot or it could mean
nothing. Based on the rules for constructing amateur built aircraft, it
"certifies" absolutely nothing.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> In a previous article, Orval Fairbairn > said:
> >What we found (and corrected):
> >
> >1. The oil cooler had insufficient airflow (both in and out). Remember
> >-- any cooling MUST provide an exit path for the air, as well as an
> >entry path. This installaltion had neither.
> >
> >2. There was no blockage of cooling air in the nose bowl behind the
> >spinner, allowing air to exit behind the spinner. We installed the
> >appropriate baffles and seals there.
>
> [etc]
>
> Ok, this is where I get confused. I'm not a builder (yet). Don't the
> plans or kit instructions tell you how to do all this? Do people diverge
> that much from the plans, and if so, why?

As "gig601builder" pointed out, a lot of plans are sketchy, at best, FWF.

That said, there are some decent books out there on FWF installations,
plus the exercise of common sense.

The biggest mistakes relate to airflow management, as on my friend's
plane.

A few basic principles:

1. Air must have a path out, as well as in. I have seen oil coolers
mounted with only 1/2 inch clearance between firewall and the aft face
of the cooler. No matter how much air you blow at the front side, it
cannot escape the back.

2. Use all of the air that comes in for cooling. Make sure that baffles
and their seals fit tight and that there are no gaps on their periphery.

3. You need blast tubes on the mags and alternator, as well as the oil
cooler.

4. Air inside the cowl will seek the lowest pressure areas to exit. A
common place is the front of the cowl, behind the spinner. That air
creates unnecessary drag and doe no cooling work. Baffle that area and
force the air past the cylinders, oil cooler, etc.

5. Exhaust pipes are an excellent heat source inside the bottom of the
cowl. You need some airflow there.

6. The more eyes that see your plane before it flies, the better. It is
far better to discover your errors (remember -- everybody makes some) on
the ground than to have them discover YOU in flight!

7. Get active with your local EAA Chapter and get to know the wise ones
-- they can save you a lot of grief!

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

Ron Natalie schreef:

> The words PROFESSIONAL and AMATEUR are not mutually exclusive.
> Get a dictionary.

Sorry, but as non-native English speaker I am confused here.
To my poor bit of learning, the meanings are:
-) professional: mainly for profit, some fun not excluded
-) amateur: mainly for fun, some profit not excluded.
I don't have a dictionary handy - what does yours say?

[Scott[_1_]]

The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my second
RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally Built" since I
will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.

Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Nov 27, 12:32 pm, es330td > wrote:
>
>>I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says
>>"Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not
>>have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to
>>be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA?
>
>
> "Professionally Built" isn't a problem for Experimental aircraft. Many
> aircraft were so built and subequently issued Experimental Racing and
> Experimental Exhibition special airworthiness certificates.
>
> However, it can be a big problem for an aircraft issued an
> Experimental Amateur-Built special airworthiness certificate. The
> rules are pretty clear that the major part of such aircraft are to be
> constructed by folks who undertook the work solely for the purposes of
> education and entertainment, that is, without money changing hands.
> The word "Professional" implies here, as it does in the sports world,
> financial transactions that likely violate the spirit if not the
> letter of the Amateur-Built rules.
>
> In at least one prior case, the FAA has moved a non-"51% rule"
> aircraft out of Amateur-Built and into Racing or Exhibition. While
> this is a relative non-issue for a glider or a single-seat acro
> airplane, the additional operating limitations and Program Letter
> requirements can put a huge onerous kink in your plans for a four-seat
> cruiser.
>
> Checking the controller.com site, I find not one but three Lancairs
> that claim "professional construction," and at least one of those
> lists a corporate entity as the manufacturer. Hopefully it's a non-
> profit corporation...
>
> I'm thinking that the sellers might be folks who haven't observed that
> the FAA seems to have been cracking down on hired gunmanship, and that
> they seem to be using sport aviation publications and circulars to do
> it.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

--

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
jan olieslagers > wrote:

> Ron Natalie schreef:
>
> > The words PROFESSIONAL and AMATEUR are not mutually exclusive.
> > Get a dictionary.
>
> Sorry, but as non-native English speaker I am confused here.
> To my poor bit of learning, the meanings are:
> -) professional: mainly for profit, some fun not excluded

Close enough. The job/work implication is the important part.

Notice that it doesn't necessarily preclude enjoying that work.

> -) amateur: mainly for fun, some profit not excluded.
> I don't have a dictionary handy - what does yours say?

Amateur literally derives from "lover of" something. You might get some
payback, but the love of the doing is the main point, and you'd probably
continue doing the thing with no received income.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

jan olieslagers wrote:
> Ron Natalie schreef:
>
>> The words PROFESSIONAL and AMATEUR are not mutually exclusive.
>> Get a dictionary.
>
> Sorry, but as non-native English speaker I am confused here.
> To my poor bit of learning, the meanings are:
> -) professional: mainly for profit, some fun not excluded
> -) amateur: mainly for fun, some profit not excluded.
> I don't have a dictionary handy - what does yours say?


The 4th definition of Professional in my dictionary.


4. Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Scott wrote:
> The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my second
> RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally Built" since
> I will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.


I don't know if I'd do that. It seems that it should be just a matter of
time until somebody at FAA get's a hair up their ass and sends down a memo
to all the FSDOs to investigate all such claims. Not that you would be in
violation of the law but why stir the pot?

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Scott wrote:
> The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my second
> RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally Built" since I
> will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.
>
> Scott
> http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
> Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
> Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
>

Actualy, (in the olde days) that would diswualify you from being able
to license or sell the second one.

It makes you a "manufacturer".

[Scott[_1_]]

I wouldn't sweat the Feds in this case since I would have my builder's
log and a couple of reams worth of photos taken during construction, so
it meets amateur built rules, but like was noted by somebody else, it
would be built to "professional" standards :)

Scott


Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
>>The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my second
>>RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally Built" since
>>I will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.
>
>
>
> I don't know if I'd do that. It seems that it should be just a matter of
> time until somebody at FAA get's a hair up their ass and sends down a memo
> to all the FSDOs to investigate all such claims. Not that you would be in
> violation of the law but why stir the pot?
>
>

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

[Scott[_1_]]

All amateur builders are considered "manufacturers" in the eyes of the
FAA. That's why there's never been an AD on a Van's RV-4 built by
someone other than Van...they are registered as Nelson RV-4, Smith RV-4,
etc. (glad I don't have a common name like Nelson or Smith!!) ;)

Scott


cavelamb himself wrote:

> Scott wrote:
>
>> The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my second
>> RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally Built" since
>> I will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.
>>
>> Scott
>> http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
>> Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
>> Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
>>
>
> Actualy, (in the olde days) that would diswualify you from being able
> to license or sell the second one.
>
> It makes you a "manufacturer".

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Scott wrote:
> All amateur builders are considered "manufacturers" in the eyes of the
> FAA. That's why there's never been an AD on a Van's RV-4 built by
> someone other than Van...they are registered as Nelson RV-4, Smith RV-4,
> etc. (glad I don't have a common name like Nelson or Smith!!) ;)
>
> Scott
>

Of course, but they used to make a very sharp distinction here.

You would not have been allowed to register the second copy as
experimental - amateur built.

Richard



>
> cavelamb himself wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>> The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my
>>> second RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally
>>> Built" since I will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>> http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
>>> Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
>>> Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
>>>
>>
>> Actualy, (in the olde days) that would diswualify you from being able
>> to license or sell the second one.
>>
>> It makes you a "manufacturer".
>
>

[Scott[_1_]]

Hmmm...I wasn't aware of THAT! You say in the "old days"...has that
been reversed? On my promo tape from Van's they mention a guy (John
Harmon, I believe) has built 3 RV-3s and an RV-4. I would have to
assume all were registered in experimental amateur built category???
How does (or did) the FAA regulate how many planes a guy built of the
"same" model? For example, what if I register my 2nd RV-4 as a
Fliegenmeister 4-VR? Interesting topic! ;)

Scott


cavelamb himself wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
>> All amateur builders are considered "manufacturers" in the eyes of the
>> FAA. That's why there's never been an AD on a Van's RV-4 built by
>> someone other than Van...they are registered as Nelson RV-4, Smith
>> RV-4, etc. (glad I don't have a common name like Nelson or Smith!!) ;)
>>
>> Scott
>>
>
> Of course, but they used to make a very sharp distinction here.
>
> You would not have been allowed to register the second copy as
> experimental - amateur built.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>>
>> cavelamb himself wrote:
>>
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>> The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my
>>>> second RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally
>>>> Built" since I will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>> http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
>>>> Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
>>>> Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actualy, (in the olde days) that would diswualify you from being able
>>> to license or sell the second one.
>>>
>>> It makes you a "manufacturer".
>>
>>
>>

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

[Ron Natalie]

jan olieslagers wrote:
> Ron Natalie schreef:
>
>> The words PROFESSIONAL and AMATEUR are not mutually exclusive.
>> Get a dictionary.
>
> Sorry, but as non-native English speaker I am confused here.
> To my poor bit of learning, the meanings are:
> -) professional: mainly for profit, some fun not excluded
> -) amateur: mainly for fun, some profit not excluded.
> I don't have a dictionary handy - what does yours say?


Amateur: One who loves or is fond of; one who has a taste for something
professional: following a line of conduct as if it were a calling
requiring speciallized knowledge and often long and intensive
academic profession.


Amateur means you like it.
Professional means you do a skillful job.

The "for free" vs. "for pay" distinction is primarily an
archaic sports distinction.

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Scott wrote:
> Hmmm...I wasn't aware of THAT! You say in the "old days"...has that
> been reversed? On my promo tape from Van's they mention a guy (John
> Harmon, I believe) has built 3 RV-3s and an RV-4. I would have to
> assume all were registered in experimental amateur built category??? How
> does (or did) the FAA regulate how many planes a guy built of the "same"
> model? For example, what if I register my 2nd RV-4 as a Fliegenmeister
> 4-VR? Interesting topic! ;)
>
> Scott
>

I wouldn't say they have officially reversed anything.

FAA has just gotten out of the business of amateur built airplanes.
They don't inspect them anymore, but USED to very agressively.
"Before closing" inspections and sign-offs were required before any
structure (spars, wings, taile, etc) could be "closed out".

Things have relaxed quite a bit.

Richard


> cavelamb himself wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>> All amateur builders are considered "manufacturers" in the eyes of
>>> the FAA. That's why there's never been an AD on a Van's RV-4 built
>>> by someone other than Van...they are registered as Nelson RV-4, Smith
>>> RV-4, etc. (glad I don't have a common name like Nelson or Smith!!) ;)
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>
>> Of course, but they used to make a very sharp distinction here.
>>
>> You would not have been allowed to register the second copy as
>> experimental - amateur built.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> cavelamb himself wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my
>>>>> second RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally
>>>>> Built" since I will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott
>>>>> http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
>>>>> Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
>>>>> Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actualy, (in the olde days) that would diswualify you from being able
>>>> to license or sell the second one.
>>>>
>>>> It makes you a "manufacturer".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:
> cavelamb himself wrote:
>
>> You would not have been allowed to register the second copy as
>> experimental - amateur built.
>
>
> Huh?
>
>
> Scott wrote:
>
>> Hmmm...I wasn't aware of THAT!
>
>
> That's because it's not correct. There are numerous folks that have
> built more than one aircraft, even of the same type, and had no issues
> at all with registering them in the experimental amateur built category,
> even if they have sold the previous ones. The only restriction is that
> the plane is built for education and/or recreation. If those criteria
> are met, what you did with it after you built it is not an issue.
>
> I've built two aircraft - neither time was I asked (or was it
> researched) by the FAA inspectors - not DARs - as to whether I'd built a
> plane before, what type it was, or what had happened to it (or whether I
> still had it).
>
> If the FAA believes that an aircraft was NOT built for education or
> recreation, but for profit, then they will not certificate it in the
> Exp. Am-Built category, but that's rare, even when it shouldn't be rare.
>

Thinkg have changed since the 1950's.

You guys go talk to some of the old timere at the EAA meetings about this.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:55:55 +0000, Scott >
wrote:

>I wouldn't sweat the Feds in this case since I would have my builder's
>log and a couple of reams worth of photos taken during construction, so
>it meets amateur built rules, but like was noted by somebody else, it
>would be built to "professional" standards :)

I'm building my own because I want'd something better than that.<:-))
Professionaly built would included Cessnas, Pipers, etc...

Roger (K8RI)

>
>Scott
>
>
>Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>>The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my second
>>>RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally Built" since
>>>I will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know if I'd do that. It seems that it should be just a matter of
>> time until somebody at FAA get's a hair up their ass and sends down a memo
>> to all the FSDOs to investigate all such claims. Not that you would be in
>> violation of the law but why stir the pot?
>>
>>

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:40:47 -0500, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>es330td wrote:
>> I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says
>> "Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not
>> have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to
>> be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA?
>
>The words PROFESSIONAL and AMATEUR are not mutually exclusive.
>Get a dictionary.

It's strange how the word Amateur has been misused to the point where
people think of it as beginners or unskilled. IIRC it's derived from
Latin and means, generally one who does something for the love of
doing it, or they enjoy what they are doing.

Roger (K8RI)

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) schreef:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:40:47 -0500, Ron Natalie >
> wrote:
>
>> es330td wrote:
>>> I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says
>>> "Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not
>>> have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to
>>> be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA?
>> The words PROFESSIONAL and AMATEUR are not mutually exclusive.
>> Get a dictionary.
>
> It's strange how the word Amateur has been misused to the point where
> people think of it as beginners or unskilled. IIRC it's derived from
> Latin and means, generally one who does something for the love of
> doing it, or they enjoy what they are doing.

No need for Latin, some knowledge of French is enough.
"Amateur" ==> whoever acts by "amour" i.e. "love".
Indeed "I love to be sysadmin" is not exclusive with
"I earn my living as a sysadmin", as can be seen in my own life.

But the words ARE exclusive when we compare
"I build a plane with the FIRST PURPOSE of gaining money"
versus
"I build a plane MAINLY because I love to".

[RST Engineering]

No need for Latin perhaps, but the French, Spanish, Italian and some related
English words have their roots in the Latin verb for love, amo.

ANd yes, after fifty years without speaking it, I can still do first
declension conjugation:

amo
amas
amat
amamus
amatis
amant

Jim




>> It's strange how the word Amateur has been misused to the point where
>> people think of it as beginners or unskilled. IIRC it's derived from
>> Latin and means, generally one who does something for the love of
>> doing it, or they enjoy what they are doing.
>
> No need for Latin, some knowledge of French is enough.
> "Amateur" ==> whoever acts by "amour" i.e. "love".
> Indeed "I love to be sysadmin" is not exclusive with
> "I earn my living as a sysadmin", as can be seen in my own life.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> No need for Latin perhaps, but the French, Spanish, Italian and some
> related English words have their roots in the Latin verb for love, amo.
>
> ANd yes, after fifty years without speaking it, I can still do first
> declension conjugation:
>
> amo
> amas
> amat
> amamus
> amatis
> amant
>
> Jim

A declension W H O ? ? ?
;-)
--
Jim in NC

[GTH]

jan olieslagers a écrit :

> No need for Latin, some knowledge of French is enough.
> "Amateur" ==> whoever acts by "amour" i.e. "love".
> Indeed "I love to be sysadmin" is not exclusive with
> "I earn my living as a sysadmin", as can be seen in my own life.


I do like this thread !

Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr

[Ed Sullivan]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:19:35 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>> No need for Latin perhaps, but the French, Spanish, Italian and some
>> related English words have their roots in the Latin verb for love, amo.
>>
>> ANd yes, after fifty years without speaking it, I can still do first
>> declension conjugation:
>>
>> amo
>> amas
>> amat
>> amamus
>> amatis
>> amant
>>
>> Jim
>
>A declension W H O ? ? ?
>;-)

If I recall correctly you decline an adjective and conjugate a verb.

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

Ed Sullivan schreef:
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:19:35 -0500, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> No need for Latin perhaps, but the French, Spanish, Italian and some
>>> related English words have their roots in the Latin verb for love, amo.
>>>
>>> ANd yes, after fifty years without speaking it, "I can still do first
>>> declension conjugation"
>>>
>>> amo
>>> amas
>>> amat
>>> amamus
>>> amatis
>>> amant
>>>
>>> Jim
>> A declension W H O ? ? ?
>> ;-)
>
> If I recall correctly you decline an adjective and conjugate a verb.

Yes, that seems to confirm here.
And not only adjectives are declined, subjectives too:
"quae voluptis quae voluptis est amarem
dolcam filiam pastoris"
Both the adjective "dolcam" and the subject "filiam"
take the "-am" extension.
I seem to remember that Baltic and Slavonic go even further
and even decline proper nouns - but I don't have an example handy.

But where previous poster wrote
"I can still do first declension conjugation"
it seems there is confusion with the three kinds
of verbs in Latin, "amarem" being of the first category.

But do let's allow: we're really wide off topic now...

[RST Engineering]

A fellow grew up on the east coast where scrod, the fish dish, is considered
quite a delicacy. His company posted him to the west coast, where that
particular fish is not found. Getting back to the east coast, he got off
the plane (obligatory aviation content) at JFK and hopped a cab for
downtown. His first question to the cabby was if the cabby knew where he
could get scrod in New York.

The cabby answered, "Buddy, I've hoid dat question ten t'ousand times but
that's the FOIST time I ever hoid it in de plupoifect subjunctive."

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford


>>> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> No need for Latin perhaps, but the French, Spanish, Italian and some
>>>> related English words have their roots in the Latin verb for love, amo.

[cavedweller]

On Dec 3, 7:29 pm, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
> A fellow grew up on the east coast where scrod, the fish dish, is considered
> quite a delicacy. His company posted him to the west coast, where that
> particular fish is not found. Getting back to the east coast, he got off
> the plane (obligatory aviation content) at JFK and hopped a cab for
> downtown. His first question to the cabby was if the cabby knew where he
> could get scrod in New York.
>
> The cabby answered, "Buddy, I've hoid dat question ten t'ousand times but
> that's the FOIST time I ever hoid it in de plupoifect subjunctive."
>
Must be the same cabby that met his wife at the airport on her return
from an extended visit to Chicago and the first words she said were,
"Hi, honey, were you blue while I was gone?"