A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven [Archive]

stol

March 7th 08, 11:48 AM

On Mar 6, 11:03*pm, cavelamb himself > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> >>The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to
> >>build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one
> >>of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a
> >>warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning
> >>on page 3 of this document:
>
> >>http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2008/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>
> > Also consider using this site (to save Vans Aircraft some bandwidth load):
>
> >http://www.vansairforce.net/rvator/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>
> Sounds more like they want to make it harder to_have_one_built_for_you.
>
> * These articles explain the FAA's concerns over excessive commercial
> abuses of the Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) licensing category.
> The ARC committee was created as an FAA/EAA/ Industry process to address
> the FAA concerns and to recommend corrective actions.

I agree with the , " harder to have one built for you" concept.. I
have been to several airshows-fly-ins etc, and chat with experimental
owners who sit under the wings of their bought homebuilts and bask in
the glow of,, See what I built crap. Later in the conversation they
usually say " Yeah, Ol Clem up in Montana, Texas, Florida", pick a
state, " did a great job of building my wizbang 200 mph toy. In my
mind they are lying sacks of **** and with this action are poking
their finger in the eyes of the FAA. The intent of experimental /
homebuilts rule was for the " educational and recreational aspect of
the builder, not to see who has the most money.. IMHO.

Ben

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 11:55 AM

stol > wrote in
:

> On Mar 6, 11:03*pm, cavelamb himself > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>
>> >>The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people
>> >>to build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder
>> >>of one of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written
>> >>up a warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it
>> >>beginning on page 3 of this document:
>>
>> >>http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2008/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>>
>> > Also consider using this site (to save Vans Aircraft some bandwidth
>> > load
> ):
>>
>> >http://www.vansairforce.net/rvator/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>>
>> Sounds more like they want to make it harder
>> to_have_one_built_for_you.
>>
>> * These articles explain the FAA's concerns over excessive commercial
>> abuses of the Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) licensing category.
>> The ARC committee was created as an FAA/EAA/ Industry process to
>> address the FAA concerns and to recommend corrective actions.
>
> I agree with the , " harder to have one built for you" concept.. I
> have been to several airshows-fly-ins etc, and chat with experimental
> owners who sit under the wings of their bought homebuilts and bask in
> the glow of,, See what I built crap. Later in the conversation they
> usually say " Yeah, Ol Clem up in Montana, Texas, Florida", pick a
> state, " did a great job of building my wizbang 200 mph toy. In my
> mind they are lying sacks of **** and with this action are poking
> their finger in the eyes of the FAA. The intent of experimental /
> homebuilts rule was for the " educational and recreational aspect of
> the builder, not to see who has the most money.. IMHO.

I agree. I couldn't be bothered to travel to OSH now...

Bertie

Mike Isaksen

March 7th 08, 12:50 PM

"stol" > wrote in message ...
> I agree with the , " harder to have one built for you" concept.. I
> have been to several airshows-fly-ins etc, and chat with experimental
> owners who sit under the wings of their bought homebuilts and bask in
> the glow of,, See what I built crap. Later in the conversation they
> usually say " Yeah, Ol Clem up in Montana, Texas, Florida", pick a
> state, " did a great job of building my wizbang 200 mph toy. In my
> mind they are lying sacks of **** and with this action are poking
> their finger in the eyes of the FAA. The intent of experimental /
> homebuilts rule was for the " educational and recreational aspect of
> the builder, not to see who has the most money.. IMHO.

Yup,... I share your annoyance listening to them, but I'm glad they're
spending their money in aviation rather than boating or classic cars. These
bloated ego "come look at me" guys are present in every arena of life. I
just keep thinking about how small our circle would be if they dried up.
Sales at Spruce (Chief,... you name em) would drop and half of our source
chain would disappear. Ol Clem wouldn't have his million dollar hanger in
his poverty stricken backwater corner. Fact is you may never even hear about
him outside his small loyal admirers. It would be a lot more "homey", but
homey don't pay the bills.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 12:59 PM

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in
news:BSaAj.6156$oy2.1669@trndny07:

>
> "stol" > wrote in message ...
>> I agree with the , " harder to have one built for you" concept.. I
>> have been to several airshows-fly-ins etc, and chat with experimental
>> owners who sit under the wings of their bought homebuilts and bask
>> in the glow of,, See what I built crap. Later in the conversation
>> they usually say " Yeah, Ol Clem up in Montana, Texas, Florida", pick
>> a state, " did a great job of building my wizbang 200 mph toy. In my
>> mind they are lying sacks of **** and with this action are poking
>> their finger in the eyes of the FAA. The intent of experimental /
>> homebuilts rule was for the " educational and recreational aspect of
>> the builder, not to see who has the most money.. IMHO.
>
> Yup,... I share your annoyance listening to them, but I'm glad they're
> spending their money in aviation rather than boating or classic cars.
> These bloated ego "come look at me" guys are present in every arena of
> life. I just keep thinking about how small our circle would be if they
> dried up. Sales at Spruce (Chief,... you name em) would drop and half
> of our source chain would disappear. Ol Clem wouldn't have his million
> dollar hanger in his poverty stricken backwater corner. Fact is you
> may never even hear about him outside his small loyal admirers. It
> would be a lot more "homey", but homey don't pay the bills.
>
>

I disagree. ACS as well as many other suppliers were around long before
these idiots arrived on the scene.

Bertie

Larry Dighera

March 7th 08, 02:11 PM

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 03:48:36 -0800 (PST), stol > wrote
in
>:

>On Mar 6, 11:03*pm, cavelamb himself > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>
>> >>The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to
>> >>build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one
>> >>of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a
>> >>warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning
>> >>on page 3 of this document:
>>
>> >>http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2008/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>>
>> > Also consider using this site (to save Vans Aircraft some bandwidth load):
>>
>> >http://www.vansairforce.net/rvator/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>>
>> Sounds more like they want to make it harder to_have_one_built_for_you.
>>
>> * These articles explain the FAA's concerns over excessive commercial
>> abuses of the Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) licensing category.
>> The ARC committee was created as an FAA/EAA/ Industry process to address
>> the FAA concerns and to recommend corrective actions.
>
>I agree with the , " harder to have one built for you" concept.. I
>have been to several airshows-fly-ins etc, and chat with experimental
>owners who sit under the wings of their bought homebuilts and bask in
>the glow of,, See what I built crap. Later in the conversation they
>usually say " Yeah, Ol Clem up in Montana, Texas, Florida", pick a
>state, " did a great job of building my wizbang 200 mph toy. In my
>mind they are lying sacks of **** and with this action are poking
>their finger in the eyes of the FAA. The intent of experimental /
>homebuilts rule was for the " educational and recreational aspect of
>the builder, not to see who has the most money.. IMHO.
>
>Ben

Personally, I see no reason for our government to intrude on our
freedom to commission the construction of an aircraft. If the FAA is
going to permit the sale and operation by non-builders of aircraft
licensed as experimental, the ban on having one built for you seems at
least inconsistent. And the implication that having personally
constructed the aircraft somehow enhances its performance or
suitability for operation in the NAS is ludicrous, IMO. To me, the
51% policy smacks of protectionism for normal/utility aircraft
manufacturers.

I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority of
armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able to
afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to find
an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections. What am I
missing?

stol

March 7th 08, 02:13 PM

On Mar 7, 5:50*am, "Mike Isaksen" > wrote:
> "stol" > wrote in message ...
> > I agree with the , " harder to have one built for you" concept.. I
> > have been to several airshows-fly-ins etc, and chat with experimental
> > owners who sit under the wings of their *bought homebuilts and bask in
> > the glow of,, See what I built crap. Later in the conversation they
> > usually say " Yeah, Ol Clem up in Montana, Texas, Florida", pick a
> > state, " did a great job of building my wizbang 200 mph toy. In my
> > mind they are lying sacks of **** and with this action are poking
> > their finger in the eyes of the FAA. The intent of experimental /
> > homebuilts rule was for the " educational and recreational aspect of
> > the builder, not to see who has the most money.. IMHO.
>
> Yup,... I share your annoyance listening to them, but I'm glad they're
> spending their money in aviation rather than boating or classic cars. These
> bloated ego "come look at me" guys are present in every arena of life. I
> just keep thinking about how small our circle would be if they dried up.
> Sales at Spruce (Chief,... you name em) would drop and half of our source
> chain would disappear. Ol Clem wouldn't have his million dollar hanger in
> his poverty stricken backwater corner. Fact is you may never even hear about
> him outside his small loyal admirers. It would be a lot more "homey", but
> homey don't pay the bills.

I agree with the substance of your message. The real problem is Ol
Clem is ruining it for all future homebuilders by thumbing his nose at
the FAA. The hell with his million dollar hangar...

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com
N801BH
A proud homebuilder who did it the hard way.....

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 02:59 PM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 03:48:36 -0800 (PST), stol > wrote
> in
> >:
>
>>On Mar 6, 11:03*pm, cavelamb himself > wrote:
>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>>
>>> >>The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for
>>> >>people to build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven,
>>> >>founder of one of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has
>>> >>written up a warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can
>>> >>read it beginning on page 3 of this document:
>>>
>>> >>http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2008/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>>>
>>> > Also consider using this site (to save Vans Aircraft some
>>> > bandwidth load):
>>>
>>> >http://www.vansairforce.net/rvator/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>>>
>>> Sounds more like they want to make it harder
>>> to_have_one_built_for_you.
>>>
>>> * These articles explain the FAA's concerns over excessive
>>> commercial abuses of the Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) licensing
>>> category. The ARC committee was created as an FAA/EAA/ Industry
>>> process to address the FAA concerns and to recommend corrective
>>> actions.
>>
>>I agree with the , " harder to have one built for you" concept.. I
>>have been to several airshows-fly-ins etc, and chat with experimental
>>owners who sit under the wings of their bought homebuilts and bask in
>>the glow of,, See what I built crap. Later in the conversation they
>>usually say " Yeah, Ol Clem up in Montana, Texas, Florida", pick a
>>state, " did a great job of building my wizbang 200 mph toy. In my
>>mind they are lying sacks of **** and with this action are poking
>>their finger in the eyes of the FAA. The intent of experimental /
>>homebuilts rule was for the " educational and recreational aspect of
>>the builder, not to see who has the most money.. IMHO.
>>
>>Ben
>
> Personally, I see no reason for our government to intrude on our
> freedom to commission the construction of an aircraft. If the FAA is
> going to permit the sale and operation by non-builders of aircraft
> licensed as experimental, the ban on having one built for you seems at
> least inconsistent. And the implication that having personally
> constructed the aircraft somehow enhances its performance or
> suitability for operation in the NAS is ludicrous, IMO. To me, the
> 51% policy smacks of protectionism for normal/utility aircraft
> manufacturers.
>
> I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority of
> armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able to
> afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to find
> an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections. What am I
> missing?
>

Pretty much everythign , as usual, Larry.

You don't build so **** off and mind your own business.

Bertie
>

[email protected]

March 7th 08, 03:29 PM

On Mar 7, 9:11*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Personally, I see no reason for our government to intrude on our
> freedom to commission the construction of an aircraft. *If the FAA is
> going to permit the sale and operation by non-builders of aircraft
> licensed as experimental, the ban on having one built for you seems at
> least inconsistent. *And the implication that having personally
> constructed the aircraft somehow enhances its performance or
> suitability for operation in the NAS is ludicrous, IMO. *To me, the
> 51% policy smacks of protectionism for normal/utility aircraft
> manufacturers. *
>
> I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority of
> armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able to
> afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to find
> an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections. *What am I
> missing?

I do agree that it is not in our interests as homebuilders or citizens
to permit the government to intrude any further on our freedoms. I
also
agree that the 51% policy seems to contain at least an element of
protectionism for manufacturers. All that said, the most common
argument (not necessarily one with which I'm in agreement) in favor of
professional builds of experimental aircraft is that the pro shops
turn
out a better quality product which is less likely to injure or kill
the
proverbial innocent bystander. Even if we accept that at face value
(which I certainly don't), it begs for the creation of a new
experimental sub-category, perhaps Experimental Professional Built,
with
increased oversight akin to that suffered by the standard category
manufacturers in pursuing and maintaining their type certificates.

I have only two emotional reactions to people who've commissioned
their
'amateur built' aircraft. The first is against those who sit by their
planes at airshows and pass the work off as their own and happily
collect whatever trophies come their way. At the very least, the
major
shows should institute an additional judging category, such that folks
who actually constructed their own airplanes with their own hands for
the purpose of their own education and recreation are only in
competition against each other and are not up against the check
writers.
The second is that these people (airplane 'commissioners') are simply
in violation of the existing rules. As far as I'm concerned, someone
who doesn't like the rules is free to attempt to change them within
the
system, but is most certainly not free to flout them at will. I have
zero sympathy for rule breakers in any context, and certainly not in
my
proverbial backyard.

Ken

Ron Lee[_2_]

March 7th 08, 03:59 PM

wrote:
All that said, the most common
>argument (not necessarily one with which I'm in agreement) in favor of
>professional builds of experimental aircraft is that the pro shops
>turn >out a better quality product which is less likely to injure or kill
>the >proverbial innocent bystander. Even if we accept that at face value
>(which I certainly don't), it begs for the creation of a new
>experimental sub-category, perhaps Experimental Professional Built,
>with increased oversight akin to that suffered by the standard category
>manufacturers in pursuing and maintaining their type certificates.

I also don't agree that innocents are less likely to be killed by a
pro built plane. Show me the stats to prove it.

The real killer is that the customer of a pro built plane may also get
the repairman's certificate which means that he lied about building
it.

Ron Lee

Larry Dighera

March 7th 08, 04:07 PM

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 07:29:20 -0800 (PST), wrote in
>:

>On Mar 7, 9:11*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> Personally, I see no reason for our government to intrude on our
>> freedom to commission the construction of an aircraft. *If the FAA is
>> going to permit the sale and operation by non-builders of aircraft
>> licensed as experimental, the ban on having one built for you seems at
>> least inconsistent. *And the implication that having personally
>> constructed the aircraft somehow enhances its performance or
>> suitability for operation in the NAS is ludicrous, IMO. *To me, the
>> 51% policy smacks of protectionism for normal/utility aircraft
>> manufacturers. *
>>
>> I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority of
>> armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able to
>> afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to find
>> an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections. *What am I
>> missing?
>
>
>I do agree that it is not in our interests as homebuilders or citizens
>to permit the government to intrude any further on our freedoms.

Right. Unless it can be demonstrated that such intrusion is
reasonable and Constitutionally implemented, it's abuse of power, IMO.

>I also agree that the 51% policy seems to contain at least an element of
>protectionism for manufacturers.

I can understand the FAA's need to provide some impetus for aircraft
manufacturers to participate in their Type Certification program, but
not at the expense of my freedom to engage in reasonable commerce.

>All that said, the most common
>argument (not necessarily one with which I'm in agreement) in favor of
>professional builds of experimental aircraft is that the pro shops
>turn out a better quality product which is less likely to injure or kill
>the proverbial innocent bystander.

I hadn't heard that argument before. I suppose that would have to be
evaluated on a case by case basis, as I assume it is during the FAA
inspections.

>Even if we accept that at face value
>(which I certainly don't), it begs for the creation of a new
>experimental sub-category, perhaps Experimental Professional Built,
>with increased oversight akin to that suffered by the standard category
>manufacturers in pursuing and maintaining their type certificates.

Interesting. What benefit could be expected with increased FAA
oversight of experimental aircraft production?

>I have only two emotional reactions to people who've commissioned
>their 'amateur built' aircraft. The first is against those who sit by their
>planes at airshows and pass the work off as their own and happily
>collect whatever trophies come their way.

Nobody like a fraud.

> At the very least, the major shows should institute an additional judging
>category, such that folks who actually constructed their own airplanes with
>their own hands for the purpose of their own education and recreation are
>only in competition against each other and are not up against the check
>writers.

Implicit in that suggestion is the notion that "professional"
experimental aircraft "manufacturers" are able to produce a product
that is somehow superior to those constructed by less experienced
homebuilders. Do you believe that to be true?

> The second is that these people (airplane 'commissioners') are simply
>in violation of the existing rules. As far as I'm concerned, someone
>who doesn't like the rules is free to attempt to change them within
>the system, but is most certainly not free to flout them at will.

Perhaps. It sort of depends on the validity of the "rule." If the
rule is unconstitutional, violating it may be seen as an act of
asserting one's rights. Consider the lunch counter sit-ins of the
'60s for example. At the other end of the spectrum is the warrantless
wiretaps perpetrated by the current RNC regime in power in our nation.
Does the end justify the means?

>I have zero sympathy for rule breakers in any context, and certainly not in
>my proverbial backyard.
>
>Ken

I wish it were that simple.

Thank you for your reasonable response, and the information it
contains.

While I have precious little exposure to homebuilding and those who do
it, I have sincere respect for anyone who applies his skills in
constructing useful things. And craftsmanship seems to be an ever
diminishing virtue in today's world, so seeing it fostered in this
context provides hope that it won't be entirely driven out of
existence by mass production.

I guess the real question is why does the FAA feel it's necessary for
a homebuilder to have done 51% of the work? Is it to protect him from
himself, or to protect the public from him, or are there other
reasons? What of the prototypes built by Lockheed or Boeing; 51% of
them aren't constructed by a single individual.

It seems that there is some fundamental assumption that I am
overlooking, because the current FAA 51% mandate seems arbitrary and
unfounded to me.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 7th 08, 04:12 PM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 07:29:20 -0800 (PST), wrote in
> >:
>
>>On Mar 7, 9:11*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> Personally, I see no reason for our government to intrude on our
>>> freedom to commission the construction of an aircraft. *If the FAA
>>> is going to permit the sale and operation by non-builders of
>>> aircraft licensed as experimental, the ban on having one built for
>>> you seems at least inconsistent. *And the implication that having
>>> personally constructed the aircraft somehow enhances its performance
>>> or suitability for operation in the NAS is ludicrous, IMO. *To me,
>>> the 51% policy smacks of protectionism for normal/utility aircraft
>>> manufacturers. *
>>>
>>> I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority
>>> of armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able
>>> to afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to
>>> find an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections. *What am I
>>> missing?
>>
>>
>>I do agree that it is not in our interests as homebuilders or citizens
>>to permit the government to intrude any further on our freedoms.
>
> Right. Unless it can be demonstrated that such intrusion is
> reasonable and Constitutionally implemented, it's abuse of power, IMO.
>
>>I also agree that the 51% policy seems to contain at least an element
>>of protectionism for manufacturers.
>
> I can understand the FAA's need to provide some impetus for aircraft
> manufacturers to participate in their Type Certification program, but
> not at the expense of my freedom to engage in reasonable commerce.
>
>>All that said, the most common
>>argument (not necessarily one with which I'm in agreement) in favor of
>>professional builds of experimental aircraft is that the pro shops
>>turn out a better quality product which is less likely to injure or
>>kill the proverbial innocent bystander.
>
> I hadn't heard that argument before. I suppose that would have to be
> evaluated on a case by case basis, as I assume it is during the FAA
> inspections.
>
>>Even if we accept that at face value
>>(which I certainly don't), it begs for the creation of a new
>>experimental sub-category, perhaps Experimental Professional Built,
>>with increased oversight akin to that suffered by the standard
>>category manufacturers in pursuing and maintaining their type
>>certificates.
>
> Interesting. What benefit could be expected with increased FAA
> oversight of experimental aircraft production?
>
>>I have only two emotional reactions to people who've commissioned
>>their 'amateur built' aircraft. The first is against those who sit by
>>their planes at airshows and pass the work off as their own and
>>happily collect whatever trophies come their way.
>
> Nobody like a fraud.
>
>> At the very least, the major shows should institute an additional
>> judging
>>category, such that folks who actually constructed their own airplanes
>>with their own hands for the purpose of their own education and
>>recreation are only in competition against each other and are not up
>>against the check writers.
>
> Implicit in that suggestion is the notion that "professional"
> experimental aircraft "manufacturers" are able to produce a product
> that is somehow superior to those constructed by less experienced
> homebuilders. Do you believe that to be true?
>
>> The second is that these people (airplane 'commissioners') are simply
>>in violation of the existing rules. As far as I'm concerned, someone
>>who doesn't like the rules is free to attempt to change them within
>>the system, but is most certainly not free to flout them at will.
>
> Perhaps. It sort of depends on the validity of the "rule." If the
> rule is unconstitutional, violating it may be seen as an act of
> asserting one's rights. Consider the lunch counter sit-ins of the
> '60s for example. At the other end of the spectrum is the warrantless
> wiretaps perpetrated by the current RNC regime in power in our nation.
> Does the end justify the means?
>
>>I have zero sympathy for rule breakers in any context, and certainly
>>not in my proverbial backyard.
>>
>>Ken
>
> I wish it were that simple.
>
> Thank you for your reasonable response, and the information it
> contains.
>
> While I have precious little exposure to homebuilding and those who do
> it, I have sincere respect for anyone who applies his skills in
> constructing useful things. And craftsmanship seems to be an ever
> diminishing virtue in today's world, so seeing it fostered in this
> context provides hope that it won't be entirely driven out of
> existence by mass production.
>
> I guess the real question is why does the FAA feel it's necessary for
> a homebuilder to have done 51% of the work? Is it to protect him from
> himself, or to protect the public from him, or are there other
> reasons? What of the prototypes built by Lockheed or Boeing; 51% of
> them aren't constructed by a single individual.
>
> It seems that there is some fundamental assumption that I am
> overlooking, because the current FAA 51% mandate seems arbitrary and
> unfounded to me.
>

It's because you're a netkkkop and not a builder larry.

Bertie

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 7th 08, 04:36 PM

Ron Lee wrote:
> wrote:
> All that said, the most common
>> argument (not necessarily one with which I'm in agreement) in favor of
>> professional builds of experimental aircraft is that the pro shops
>> turn >out a better quality product which is less likely to injure or kill
>> the >proverbial innocent bystander. Even if we accept that at face value
>> (which I certainly don't), it begs for the creation of a new
>> experimental sub-category, perhaps Experimental Professional Built,
>> with increased oversight akin to that suffered by the standard category
>> manufacturers in pursuing and maintaining their type certificates.
>
> I also don't agree that innocents are less likely to be killed by a
> pro built plane. Show me the stats to prove it.
>
> The real killer is that the customer of a pro built plane may also get
> the repairman's certificate which means that he lied about building
> it.
>
> Ron Lee

I have a business associate that bought a "pro-built" RV7. While he was
flying home X-C the plane lost power and he safely landed in a field. He
got the farmer who owned the land to tow him over beside the barn and
then found and A&P to come out and see if he could fix the problem.

The logs showed the plane had flown the 40 hours to get out of phase 1
testing. That A&P and another that looked at it later both felt after
looking at the plane that there was no way this plane had been flown
more than five or six hours.

When the buyer looked further at the log book entries he realized that
the that a date had been changed and that there was only, originally 3
days between the beginning and the end of the phase 1 testing.

He got his money back in the deal after his lawyer made it very clear
that there would either be a wire in the buyers account that day or a
call would be made to the FAA.

[email protected]

March 7th 08, 04:49 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Interesting. What benefit could be expected with increased FAA
> oversight of experimental aircraft production?

The potential benefit would be primarily one of consistency. To use
another word: standards. The feds (as representatives of both the
public's safety interests and the manufacturer's fiscal interests)
would create a more level playing field with respect to quality of
construction (similar to the whole type certification process) and the
'commissioners', for their part, would get more assurance of receiving
a product that meets a certain standard of quality/airworthiness. As
it stands now, the work of 'professional' builders is all over the
place with respect to quality. Anyone can hang out their shingle and
dupe people into believing that having completed an airplane or two,
or even having an A&P certificate, somehow implies a quality product.
Too many builders, including the pros, will take the quick route or
the cheap route to the solution of a particular building situation/
problem. There is often more than one 'right' route, but the quick or
cheap one is seldom it. There is no shortcut to craftsmanship.

Now, I'm by no means advocating this sort of additional oversight, but
merely pointing out the potential upside.

> Nobody like a fraud.

That's one word for it. These people are the worst sort of liars. I
can think of one Grand Champion RV-6 from a few years ago as just one
example.

> Implicit in that suggestion is the notion that "professional"
> experimental aircraft "manufacturers" are able to produce a product
> that is somehow superior to those constructed by less experienced
> homebuilders. Do you believe that to be true?

Certainly not across the board by any means, though some shops are
capable of turning out a more slickly finished product than the
average homebuilder generally produces. Everyone likes to look at a
gorgeous airplane, but it's disingenuous to put those planes forward
as examples of 'homebuilding', to say nothing of the unfairness of
allowing them to compete alongside the genuine articles.

> Perhaps. It sort of depends on the validity of the "rule." If the
> rule is unconstitutional, violating it may be seen as an act of
> asserting one's rights. Consider the lunch counter sit-ins of the
> '60s for example. At the other end of the spectrum is the warrantless
> wiretaps perpetrated by the current RNC regime in power in our nation.
> Does the end justify the means?

I think that when we talk about 'validity' in this context we need to
be cognizant of the difference between a rule that is morally wrong
and one that is merely inconvenient. The lunch counter protesters,
however morally right they were, in fact were breaking the rules.
They were asserting a moral right, but definitely not a legal one.
The warrantless wiretaps you mention represent just the opposite
situation, where they are conducted as a legal right (according to you-
know-who), but are morally (and constitutionally) wrong. In one case,
it could be said that the ends justified the means, but I don't think
that most people would apply that particular reasoning to the other
case. I didn't intend to state my premise in such terms that one has
to definitively choose either side. Life is not that simple.

All of this aside, let's not put check writers skirting the intention
of the amateur-built rules for their own convenience on the same level
as Parks and King and Gandhi, for that matter.

> Thank you for your reasonable response, and the information it
> contains.

Glad to contribute.

> While I have precious little exposure to homebuilding and those who do
> it, I have sincere respect for anyone who applies his skills in
> constructing useful things. And craftsmanship seems to be an ever
> diminishing virtue in today's world, so seeing it fostered in this
> context provides hope that it won't be entirely driven out of
> existence by mass production.

Agree 100%.

> I guess the real question is why does the FAA feel it's necessary for
> a homebuilder to have done 51% of the work? Is it to protect him from
> himself, or to protect the public from him, or are there other
> reasons? What of the prototypes built by Lockheed or Boeing; 51% of
> them aren't constructed by a single individual.

Why 51%? I think that brings us back to the point of the feds
protecting the investment of the manufacturers in the type
certification process. The prototypes you mention aren't registered
as amateur-built. There are a number of experimental categories and
the 51% rule only applies to amateur-built aircraft.

Ken

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 7th 08, 04:59 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> I guess the real question is why does the FAA feel it's necessary for
> a homebuilder to have done 51% of the work? Is it to protect him from
> himself, or to protect the public from him, or are there other
> reasons? What of the prototypes built by Lockheed or Boeing; 51% of
> them aren't constructed by a single individual.

Those aircraft aren't certified under Experimental-Homebuilt. The only
place the 51% rule applies. And for the record the rule isn't that the
plane be built 51% by Joe T. Nomebuilder it is that 51% of the TASKS
have to be done by Joe or others for Education and Recreation.

>
> It seems that there is some fundamental assumption that I am
> overlooking, because the current FAA 51% mandate seems arbitrary and
> unfounded to me.

Congress passed the law requiring the FAA to create the regulations.
That's how it works in Washington.

The law was designed to allow home builders to do exactly that "For
recreation and education. When it was first passed the way it was
implemented in the real world was Joe T. Homebuilder bought some plans
or even designed it himself and then went to the hardware store and
bought what he needed an built the plane.

As time passed companies started putting to kits of all the parts (in
very unfinished form) needed to build their plans and selling that along
with the plans. All is good at this point because buying raw material
isn't really either education and it certainly isn't recreational.

More time passed and those kits of parts started becoming more and
complete and finished. The FAA saw the problem and modified the
regulation with the completely reasonable 51% rule.

BTW.

Acepilot

March 7th 08, 05:01 PM

What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
"kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow
for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for
the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they
themselves did not build 51%.

Scott

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Ron Lee wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>> All that said, the most common
>>
>>> argument (not necessarily one with which I'm in agreement) in favor of
>>> professional builds of experimental aircraft is that the pro shops
>>> turn >out a better quality product which is less likely to injure or
>>> kill
>>> the >proverbial innocent bystander. Even if we accept that at face
>>> value
>>> (which I certainly don't), it begs for the creation of a new
>>> experimental sub-category, perhaps Experimental Professional Built,
>>> with increased oversight akin to that suffered by the standard category
>>> manufacturers in pursuing and maintaining their type certificates.
>>
>>
>> I also don't agree that innocents are less likely to be killed by a
>> pro built plane. Show me the stats to prove it.
>>
>> The real killer is that the customer of a pro built plane may also get
>> the repairman's certificate which means that he lied about building
>> it.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>
>
> I have a business associate that bought a "pro-built" RV7. While he was
> flying home X-C the plane lost power and he safely landed in a field. He
> got the farmer who owned the land to tow him over beside the barn and
> then found and A&P to come out and see if he could fix the problem.
>
> The logs showed the plane had flown the 40 hours to get out of phase 1
> testing. That A&P and another that looked at it later both felt after
> looking at the plane that there was no way this plane had been flown
> more than five or six hours.
>
> When the buyer looked further at the log book entries he realized that
> the that a date had been changed and that there was only, originally 3
> days between the beginning and the end of the phase 1 testing.
>
> He got his money back in the deal after his lawyer made it very clear
> that there would either be a wire in the buyers account that day or a
> call would be made to the FAA.

Rich Ahrens[_2_]

March 7th 08, 05:54 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 03:48:36 -0800 (PST), stol > wrote
> in
> >:
>
>> On Mar 6, 11:03 pm, cavelamb himself > wrote:
>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>>>> The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to
>>>>> build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one
>>>>> of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a
>>>>> warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning
>>>>> on page 3 of this document:
>>>>> http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2008/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>>>> Also consider using this site (to save Vans Aircraft some bandwidth load):
>>>> http://www.vansairforce.net/rvator/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>>> Sounds more like they want to make it harder to_have_one_built_for_you.
>>>
>>> These articles explain the FAA's concerns over excessive commercial
>>> abuses of the Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) licensing category.
>>> The ARC committee was created as an FAA/EAA/ Industry process to address
>>> the FAA concerns and to recommend corrective actions.
>> I agree with the , " harder to have one built for you" concept.. I
>> have been to several airshows-fly-ins etc, and chat with experimental
>> owners who sit under the wings of their bought homebuilts and bask in
>> the glow of,, See what I built crap. Later in the conversation they
>> usually say " Yeah, Ol Clem up in Montana, Texas, Florida", pick a
>> state, " did a great job of building my wizbang 200 mph toy. In my
>> mind they are lying sacks of **** and with this action are poking
>> their finger in the eyes of the FAA. The intent of experimental /
>> homebuilts rule was for the " educational and recreational aspect of
>> the builder, not to see who has the most money.. IMHO.
>>
>> Ben
>
> Personally, I see no reason for our government to intrude on our
> freedom to commission the construction of an aircraft. If the FAA is
> going to permit the sale and operation by non-builders of aircraft
> licensed as experimental, the ban on having one built for you seems at
> least inconsistent. And the implication that having personally
> constructed the aircraft somehow enhances its performance or
> suitability for operation in the NAS is ludicrous, IMO. To me, the
> 51% policy smacks of protectionism for normal/utility aircraft
> manufacturers.
>
> I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority of
> armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able to
> afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to find
> an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections. What am I
> missing?

Your frontal lobes, from all appearances...

Larry Dighera

March 7th 08, 06:56 PM

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:36:39 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote in
>:

>
>I have a business associate that bought a "pro-built" RV7. While he was
>flying home X-C the plane lost power and he safely landed in a field. He
>got the farmer who owned the land to tow him over beside the barn and
>then found and A&P to come out and see if he could fix the problem.
>
>The logs showed the plane had flown the 40 hours to get out of phase 1
>testing. That A&P and another that looked at it later both felt after
>looking at the plane that there was no way this plane had been flown
>more than five or six hours.
>
>When the buyer looked further at the log book entries he realized that
>the that a date had been changed and that there was only, originally 3
>days between the beginning and the end of the phase 1 testing.
>
>He got his money back in the deal after his lawyer made it very clear
>that there would either be a wire in the buyers account that day or a
>call would be made to the FAA.

Perhaps a prudent purchaser would consider it a good idea to have an
A&P look at the aircraft and logs BEFOFE the purchase.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 07:09 PM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:36:39 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>I have a business associate that bought a "pro-built" RV7. While he was
>>flying home X-C the plane lost power and he safely landed in a field. He
>>got the farmer who owned the land to tow him over beside the barn and
>>then found and A&P to come out and see if he could fix the problem.
>>
>>The logs showed the plane had flown the 40 hours to get out of phase 1
>>testing. That A&P and another that looked at it later both felt after
>>looking at the plane that there was no way this plane had been flown
>>more than five or six hours.
>>
>>When the buyer looked further at the log book entries he realized that
>>the that a date had been changed and that there was only, originally 3
>>days between the beginning and the end of the phase 1 testing.
>>
>>He got his money back in the deal after his lawyer made it very clear
>>that there would either be a wire in the buyers account that day or a
>>call would be made to the FAA.
>
> Perhaps a prudent purchaser would consider it a good idea to have an
> A&P look at the aircraft and logs BEFOFE the purchase.
>

Perhaps it shoudl be as intended and the builder knows how it went
toghether because he built it, Perry Mason.

Bertie

Ron Lee[_2_]

March 7th 08, 07:19 PM

Acepilot > wrote:

>What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
>"kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
>builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
>finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow
>for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for
>the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they
>themselves did not build 51%.
>
>Scott

"pro built" in my message means that you pay someone to build it.

Ron Lee

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 7th 08, 07:24 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:

> snipping here - to set a good example...
>
> Personally, I see no reason for our government to intrude on our
> freedom to commission the construction of an aircraft. If the FAA is
> going to permit the sale and operation by non-builders of aircraft
> licensed as experimental, the ban on having one built for you seems at
> least inconsistent. And the implication that having personally
> constructed the aircraft somehow enhances its performance or
> suitability for operation in the NAS is ludicrous, IMO. To me, the
> 51% policy smacks of protectionism for normal/utility aircraft
> manufacturers.
>

You never had the freedom to commissioon the construction of an aircraft.

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 7th 08, 07:24 PM

Acepilot wrote:
> What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
> "kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
> builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
> finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow
> for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for
> the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they
> themselves did not build 51%.
>
> Scott

Ace you might want to read the thread there Ace. A "pro-built" in the
context of this thread is a a person that is building an aircraft under
the guise of the homebuilt rules for profit instead for recreation and
education as allowed by the law.

I used to term "pro-built" instead of the more apt "law breaking,
risking my ability to build an airplane, asshole."

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 7th 08, 07:29 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:36:39 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> I have a business associate that bought a "pro-built" RV7. While he was
>> flying home X-C the plane lost power and he safely landed in a field. He
>> got the farmer who owned the land to tow him over beside the barn and
>> then found and A&P to come out and see if he could fix the problem.
>>
>> The logs showed the plane had flown the 40 hours to get out of phase 1
>> testing. That A&P and another that looked at it later both felt after
>> looking at the plane that there was no way this plane had been flown
>> more than five or six hours.
>>
>> When the buyer looked further at the log book entries he realized that
>> the that a date had been changed and that there was only, originally 3
>> days between the beginning and the end of the phase 1 testing.
>>
>> He got his money back in the deal after his lawyer made it very clear
>> that there would either be a wire in the buyers account that day or a
>> call would be made to the FAA.
>
> Perhaps a prudent purchaser would consider it a good idea to have an
> A&P look at the aircraft and logs BEFOFE the purchase.
>

The problem that developed and caused the engine failure may or may not
have been found by A&P. The log book entry would probably not have been
noticed in a hanger.

The point is though was that this was purchased from an A&P that was
building under the Exp-HB rules buy a buyer that thought that meant he
was getting a well constructed aircraft that had been properly built and
tested.

Rich S.[_1_]

March 7th 08, 07:34 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> You don't build so **** off and mind your own business.

Yeah! What he said. And we gotta get rid of all those guys building KIT
airplanes, too.
You ain't $**t if you don't build from scratch! And you need to build your
own engine, too - at least 51% of it.
And make half the bolts and nuts. With a file. <BFG>

Rich S.

Larry Dighera

March 7th 08, 07:47 PM

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:59:03 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> I guess the real question is why does the FAA feel it's necessary for
>> a homebuilder to have done 51% of the work? Is it to protect him from
>> himself, or to protect the public from him, or are there other
>> reasons? What of the prototypes built by Lockheed or Boeing; 51% of
>> them aren't constructed by a single individual.
>
>Those aircraft aren't certified under Experimental-Homebuilt. The only
>place the 51% rule applies. And for the record the rule isn't that the
>plane be built 51% by Joe T. Nomebuilder it is that 51% of the TASKS
>have to be done by Joe or others for Education and Recreation.
>

From what authority does our government's power to demand how a
citizen recreates or educates himself emanate? It seems the FAA may
be overstepping their authority in making such demands if there is no
rational reason for it. Is there evidence that 51% constructed
aircraft provide some measure of safety to the public that aircraft
manufactured by a third party don't?

The real question is why does the FAA feel it's necessary for a
homebuilder to have done 51% of the work? Does it make the public
safer, and if you think so, how? It seems absurd to me.

The FAA should inspect the completed aircraft, and if it isn't deemed
to be a hazard to the public, it should be permitted to operate within
the NAS, period. Is there some history of a policy such as that
causing problems?

>
>>
>> It seems that there is some fundamental assumption that I am
>> overlooking, because the current FAA 51% mandate seems arbitrary and
>> unfounded to me.
>
>Congress passed the law requiring the FAA to create the regulations.
>That's how it works in Washington.

Have you any idea what prompted Congress to pass such a law concerning
homebuilt aircraft? Is there a good reason for it, one that makes the
public safer?

>The law was designed to allow home builders to do exactly that "For
>recreation and education.

I find it curious that the FAA is able to regulate the _motivation_ of
homebuilders. That seems spurious on face. From my point of view,
the FAA's role is to attempt to assure that folks aren't creating an
aerial hazard to the public, nothing more. Why should we permit the
FAA to tell us what to think or demand that we have self-education as
our motivation? If that sort of government scrutiny is permitted
today, how far away are the thought-police?

>When it was first passed the way it was
>implemented in the real world was Joe T. Homebuilder bought some plans
>or even designed it himself and then went to the hardware store and
>bought what he needed an built the plane.
>
>As time passed companies started putting to kits of all the parts (in
>very unfinished form) needed to build their plans and selling that along
>with the plans. All is good at this point because buying raw material
>isn't really either education and it certainly isn't recreational.
>
>More time passed and those kits of parts started becoming more and
>complete and finished.

I fail to see any problem with that. The kit manufacturers are
providing a reasonable service. They complete some of the more arcane
construction that may demand specific skills or tools. Is that a bad
thing? Why?

>The FAA saw the problem and modified the
>regulation with the completely reasonable 51% rule.
>

Well, it seems you and the FAA see a problem, but I don't.

The "problem" being that the homebuilder hadn't done a significant
portion of the work. So what? Why is that a problem? I just fail to
understand the FAA's rational for demanding that the homebuilder do
the majority of the work. It may be reasonable, but no one has
provided a logical rational for it yet in this discussion.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 07:52 PM

"Rich S." > wrote in
:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> You don't build so **** off and mind your own business.
>
> Yeah! What he said. And we gotta get rid of all those guys building
> KIT airplanes, too.
> You ain't $**t if you don't build from scratch! And you need to build
> your own engine, too - at least 51% of it.
> And make half the bolts and nuts. With a file. <BFG>

In an ideal world...

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 07:54 PM

Larry, shut up.

Bertie

Larry Dighera

March 7th 08, 08:06 PM

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:29:11 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:36:39 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> I have a business associate that bought a "pro-built" RV7. While he was
>>> flying home X-C the plane lost power and he safely landed in a field. He
>>> got the farmer who owned the land to tow him over beside the barn and
>>> then found and A&P to come out and see if he could fix the problem.
>>>
>>> The logs showed the plane had flown the 40 hours to get out of phase 1
>>> testing. That A&P and another that looked at it later both felt after
>>> looking at the plane that there was no way this plane had been flown
>>> more than five or six hours.
>>>
>>> When the buyer looked further at the log book entries he realized that
>>> the that a date had been changed and that there was only, originally 3
>>> days between the beginning and the end of the phase 1 testing.
>>>
>>> He got his money back in the deal after his lawyer made it very clear
>>> that there would either be a wire in the buyers account that day or a
>>> call would be made to the FAA.
>>
>> Perhaps a prudent purchaser would consider it a good idea to have an
>> A&P look at the aircraft and logs BEFOFE the purchase.
>>
>
>The problem that developed and caused the engine failure may or may not
>have been found by A&P. The log book entry would probably not have been
>noticed in a hanger.
>
>The point is though was that this was purchased from an A&P that was
>building under the Exp-HB rules buy a buyer that thought that meant he
>was getting a well constructed aircraft that had been properly built and
>tested.

It's a significant expenditure, and demands due diligence of the
buyer, IMO. The buyer who fails to attempt to guard against being
defrauded in the situation you described shares some culpability, IMO.
This is the sort of caveat emptor that keeps Consumer Reports in
business.

Any aircraft buyer that uses the IA who signed off the last annual
inspection of the aircraft s/he is considering fails to appreciate the
potential conflict of interest. I see no reason that sort of prudence
shouldn't apply in a homebuilt context, especially if the buyer is
aware that the seller's moral character is suspect due to the
knowledge that they are both committing an act of fraud.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 08:16 PM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:29:11 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:36:39 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
>>> > wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>> I have a business associate that bought a "pro-built" RV7. While he
>>>> was flying home X-C the plane lost power and he safely landed in a
>>>> field. He got the farmer who owned the land to tow him over beside
>>>> the barn and then found and A&P to come out and see if he could fix
>>>> the problem.
>>>>
>>>> The logs showed the plane had flown the 40 hours to get out of
>>>> phase 1 testing. That A&P and another that looked at it later both
>>>> felt after looking at the plane that there was no way this plane
>>>> had been flown more than five or six hours.
>>>>
>>>> When the buyer looked further at the log book entries he realized
>>>> that the that a date had been changed and that there was only,
>>>> originally 3 days between the beginning and the end of the phase 1
>>>> testing.
>>>>
>>>> He got his money back in the deal after his lawyer made it very
>>>> clear that there would either be a wire in the buyers account that
>>>> day or a call would be made to the FAA.
>>>
>>> Perhaps a prudent purchaser would consider it a good idea to have an
>>> A&P look at the aircraft and logs BEFOFE the purchase.
>>>
>>
>>The problem that developed and caused the engine failure may or may
>>not have been found by A&P. The log book entry would probably not have
>>been noticed in a hanger.
>>
>>The point is though was that this was purchased from an A&P that was
>>building under the Exp-HB rules buy a buyer that thought that meant he
>>was getting a well constructed aircraft that had been properly built
>>and tested.
>
> It's a significant expenditure, and demands due diligence of the
> buyer, IMO. The buyer who fails to attempt to guard against being
> defrauded in the situation you described shares some culpability, IMO.
> This is the sort of caveat emptor that keeps Consumer Reports in
> business.
>
> Any aircraft buyer that uses the IA who signed off the last annual
> inspection of the aircraft s/he is considering fails to appreciate the
> potential conflict of interest. I see no reason that sort of prudence
> shouldn't apply in a homebuilt context, especially if the buyer is
> aware that the seller's moral character is suspect due to the
> knowledge that they are both committing an act of fraud.
>
>

Good grief.

Bertie

Larry Dighera

March 7th 08, 10:16 PM

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:49:35 -0800 (PST), wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> Implicit in that suggestion is the notion that "professional"
>> experimental aircraft "manufacturers" are able to produce a product
>> that is somehow superior to those constructed by less experienced
>> homebuilders. Do you believe that to be true?
>
>Certainly not across the board by any means, though some shops are
>capable of turning out a more slickly finished product than the
>average homebuilder generally produces. Everyone likes to look at a
>gorgeous airplane, but it's disingenuous to put those planes forward
>as examples of 'homebuilding', to say nothing of the unfairness of
>allowing them to compete alongside the genuine articles.
>

I can see where this fraud is irksome to true craftsmen, but I can't
see how it appropriate for the FAA to be involved in assuring that a
prize awarded ostensibly on merit is genuinely so.

>> While I have precious little exposure to homebuilding and those who do
>> it, I have sincere respect for anyone who applies his skills in
>> constructing useful things. And craftsmanship seems to be an ever
>> diminishing virtue in today's world, so seeing it fostered in this
>> context provides hope that it won't be entirely driven out of
>> existence by mass production.
>
>Agree 100%.
>
>> I guess the real question is why does the FAA feel it's necessary for
>> a homebuilder to have done 51% of the work? Is it to protect him from
>> himself, or to protect the public from him, or are there other
>> reasons? What of the prototypes built by Lockheed or Boeing; 51% of
>> them aren't constructed by a single individual.
>
>Why 51%? I think that brings us back to the point of the feds
>protecting the investment of the manufacturers in the type
>certification process.

Do you believe that the FAA should be involved in protecting aircraft
manufacturers financial interests?

>The prototypes you mention aren't registered
>as amateur-built. There are a number of experimental categories and
>the 51% rule only applies to amateur-built aircraft.
>

Why? That seems a little arbitrary to me. If one group is enjoined
from employing others to construct an aircraft, why should another
group be permitted to do the same thing with impunity?

Blueskies

March 7th 08, 10:18 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message ...
>
> I agree. I couldn't be bothered to travel to OSH now...
>
>
> Bertie

But OSH is pretty cool! Gotta take it for what it is, not what they say it is.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 10:20 PM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>
>
> I can see where this fraud is irksome to true craftsmen, but I can't
> see how it appropriate for the FAA to be involved in assuring that a
> prize awarded ostensibly on merit is genuinely so.
>

> Do you believe that the FAA should be involved in protecting aircraft
> manufacturers financial interests?

Wow, you've just moved your idiocy to a whole new level there Lar.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 7th 08, 10:22 PM

"Blueskies" > wrote in
et:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I agree. I couldn't be bothered to travel to OSH now...
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> But OSH is pretty cool! Gotta take it for what it is, not what they
> say it is.
>

Been there. I know what it's become... Used to be 100% terrific, now
about 3-4%

And I never pay attention to what "they" say, anyhoo.

Bertie

Bertie

Jim Logajan

March 7th 08, 11:08 PM

cavelamb himself > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>
>>>The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people
>>>to build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of
>>>one of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a
>>>warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning
>>>on page 3 of this document:
>>>
>>>http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2008/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>>
>>
>> Also consider using this site (to save Vans Aircraft some bandwidth
>> load):
>>
>> http://www.vansairforce.net/rvator/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>
> Sounds more like they want to make it harder
> to_have_one_built_for_you.

That appears to be what the FAA wants. But IMHO the changes the FAA is
considering appear unlikely to accomplish that goal. Consider Joe
Homebuilder and friends who invest in a lot of equipment and somehow set up
an assembly-line-like operation and build homebuilts from "raw" material.
If they fill out all the paperwork legal and proper, on what basis could
the FAA claim that they had not "fabricated and assembled the majority
portion of the aircraft for their own education or recreation?"

> These articles explain the FAA's concerns over excessive commercial
> abuses of the Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) licensing category.
> The ARC committee was created as an FAA/EAA/ Industry process to
> address the FAA concerns and to recommend corrective actions.

I believe Van pointed out that the FAA appears to be ignoring the concerns
raised by some members of the ARC if shared credit is disallowed for the
tasks on the form 8000-38 checklist. He was on the committee and clearly
got negative vibes from the FAA members - and appears to be concerned
enough about the impact on the entire field that he felt compelled to write
his "call to arms."

(If suppose if one believes that pounding 10,000 rivets is instructional
and/or recreational but pounding 1000 rivets is not, fine. No accounting
for taste. ;-))

Blueskies

March 7th 08, 11:11 PM

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message ...
> Acepilot > wrote:
>
>>What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
>>"kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
>>builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
>>finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow
>>for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for
>>the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they
>>themselves did not build 51%.
>>
>>Scott
>
> "pro built" in my message means that you pay someone to build it.
>
> Ron Lee

Why should this not be allowed? This is a free country, maybe...

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 7th 08, 11:15 PM

I suspect there is going to be a fall outhere.

A division between those who can read and understand the regulations,
and those who can't/won't.

Simple as that, Larry.

Blueskies

March 7th 08, 11:15 PM

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message ...
> wrote:
> All that said, the most common
>>argument (not necessarily one with which I'm in agreement) in favor of
>>professional builds of experimental aircraft is that the pro shops
>>turn >out a better quality product which is less likely to injure or kill
>>the >proverbial innocent bystander. Even if we accept that at face value
>>(which I certainly don't), it begs for the creation of a new
>>experimental sub-category, perhaps Experimental Professional Built,
>>with increased oversight akin to that suffered by the standard category
>>manufacturers in pursuing and maintaining their type certificates.
>
> I also don't agree that innocents are less likely to be killed by a
> pro built plane. Show me the stats to prove it.
>
> The real killer is that the customer of a pro built plane may also get
> the repairman's certificate which means that he lied about building
> it.
>
> Ron Lee

It would be very interesting for someone to be charged with operating an illegally built aircraft. How would this be
challenged in the courts?

Roger[_4_]

March 8th 08, 12:06 AM

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:03:24 -0600, cavelamb himself
> wrote:

>Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>
>>>The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to
>>>build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one
>>>of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a
>>>warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning
>>>on page 3 of this document:
>>>
>>>http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2008/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>>
>>
>> Also consider using this site (to save Vans Aircraft some bandwidth load):
>>
>> http://www.vansairforce.net/rvator/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>
>
>
>
>Sounds more like they want to make it harder to_have_one_built_for_you.

That is the reasoning behind all this, but as with many regulations
it's going to take some close watching to keep them from going astray.
In the past, there really wasn't a 51% rule as we think of it. They
expected the builder complete 51% of the tasks. IOW, if you
constructed one aileron That was as good as constructing and mounting
both. Build one rib is as good as building 30. Some areas are just
done much better by the manufacturer as stated in the letter. forming
ribs as an example. In the past IIRC you could share the wing,
aileron, elevator and stab construction with the manufacturer if they
stamped out the ribs and you put everything together. The FAA
apparently wants to eliminate this. How they would go about it and how
it would affect what we do is really an unknown at this point.

There's a big gap between the *Intent* of the rule as has been
interpreted AND ACCEPTED by the FAA and the *Letter* of the rule.

In my G-III the fuselage shells (right, and left, along with the
forward and rear belly pans are factory molded composite sandwiches.
The builder spends many hours just jigging, aligning, and bonding
these sections. The horizontal stab comes with pre molded ribs and
shear webs (which have to be cut to size) along with the upper and
lower shells, but putting one together is a long and tedious task.
OTOH the elevator, ailerons, and flaps only come as shells. You get
to figure out the dimensions of the ribs. They give a bit of guidance
on the lay ups but absolutely nothing on the dimensions or shaping of
those ribs.

The G-III is probably one of the most, if not the most labor intensive
kit out there at a conservative 4000 hours for construction. Few make
it in that little a time.. Even the fast build (Jump start in their
dictionary) still takes thousands of hours to complete.

there is a good chance the way they are wording some things that even
this kit might be affected.
>
>
>
>
> These articles explain the FAA's concerns over excessive commercial
>abuses of the Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) licensing category.
>The ARC committee was created as an FAA/EAA/ Industry process to address
>the FAA concerns and to recommend corrective actions.

Unfortunately as logical as that sounds it doesn't necessarily follow
that any rules changes will be as logical. Even as currently written
changing from the Intent to the letter of the rule would be a drastic
change.

I doubt with what I'm building if the rules changes would have much
effect. OTOH contrary to probably most on the group, I see little
problem or even downside to changing it to a 20 or 25% rule. I happen
to like building and by doing so I can also end up with a plane that
has capabilities not available in production aircraft AND end up with
one I couldn't afford to purchase outright. OTOH I have no problem
nor do I see a problem with some one hiring the same plane built for
them as long as it still has to abide by the flight restrictions of
other E-AB aircraft.. I say this for two reasons that are very
apparent to me.

Although many of us build for the fun of it (education is rarely one
of the top reasons, or even one of the reasons.) From what I've seen
and we have quite a few homebuilts at 3BS (kit and scratch built),
most are constructed either to save money or just because they like to
build. One more reason is they couldn't purchase a plane like they
want to build even if they did have the money and we have quite a few
who are flying two and even three engine jets.OK only one is flying a
three holer.

Yes I'm learning things and some would call that education which it
is, but I'll state outright, that has nothing to do with me building.
I'm building because I like to do it! I'd get more enjoyment out of
building another because I could do it more efficiently, faster, and
cheaper. HOWEVER if I ever do get the thing finished and I'm able to
fly it, my main/only reason for building at that time would be "flying
an airplane I constructed myself".

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

WJRFlyBoy

March 8th 08, 01:31 AM

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:11:36 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

> Personally, I see no reason for our government to intrude on our
> freedom to commission the construction of an aircraft. If the FAA is
> going to permit the sale and operation by non-builders of aircraft
> licensed as experimental, the ban on having one built for you seems at
> least inconsistent. And the implication that having personally
> constructed the aircraft somehow enhances its performance or
> suitability for operation in the NAS is ludicrous, IMO. To me, the
> 51% policy smacks of protectionism for normal/utility aircraft
> manufacturers.
>
> I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority of
> armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able to
> afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to find
> an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections.

What he said.

>What am I
> missing?

I guess we must be missing something, staying tuned......
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 8th 08, 01:44 AM

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:54:37 -0600, Rich Ahrens wrote:

>> Personally, I see no reason for our government to intrude on our
>> freedom to commission the construction of an aircraft. If the FAA is
>> going to permit the sale and operation by non-builders of aircraft
>> licensed as experimental, the ban on having one built for you seems at
>> least inconsistent. And the implication that having personally
>> constructed the aircraft somehow enhances its performance or
>> suitability for operation in the NAS is ludicrous, IMO. To me, the
>> 51% policy smacks of protectionism for normal/utility aircraft
>> manufacturers.
>>
>> I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority of
>> armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able to
>> afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to find
>> an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections. What am I
>> missing?
>
> Your frontal lobes, from all appearances...

Amusing Rich, sorta, but I find no argument that can untrack Larry's.

None.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

William Hung[_2_]

March 8th 08, 02:13 AM

On Mar 7, 6:48*am, stol > wrote:
> On Mar 6, 11:03*pm, cavelamb himself > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jim Logajan wrote:
> > > Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> > >>The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to
> > >>build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one
> > >>of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a
> > >>warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning
> > >>on page 3 of this document:
>
> > >>http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2008/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>
> > > Also consider using this site (to save Vans Aircraft some bandwidth load):
>
> > >http://www.vansairforce.net/rvator/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>
> > Sounds more like they want to make it harder to_have_one_built_for_you.
>
> > * These articles explain the FAA's concerns over excessive commercial
> > abuses of the Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) licensing category.
> > The ARC committee was created as an FAA/EAA/ Industry process to address
> > the FAA concerns and to recommend corrective actions.
>
> I agree with the , " harder to have one built for you" concept.. I
> have been to several airshows-fly-ins etc, and chat with experimental
> owners who sit under the wings of their *bought homebuilts and bask in
> the glow of,, See what I built crap. Later in the conversation they
> usually say " Yeah, Ol Clem up in Montana, Texas, Florida", pick a
> state, " did a great job of building my wizbang 200 mph toy. In my
> mind they are lying sacks of **** and with this action are poking
> their finger in the eyes of the FAA. The intent of experimental /
> homebuilts rule was for the " educational and recreational aspect of
> the builder, not to see who has the most money.. IMHO.
>
> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree with you to a certain point. I think that there arepeople out
there who are better off having 'one made for them' than to have them
make it themselves. I know people will say, 'so let them get a
certified one!' Well... just well...

Wil

Dale Scroggins[_2_]

March 8th 08, 02:50 AM

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:54:37 -0600, Rich Ahrens wrote:
>
>>> Personally, I see no reason for our government to intrude on our
>>> freedom to commission the construction of an aircraft. If the FAA is
>>> going to permit the sale and operation by non-builders of aircraft
>>> licensed as experimental, the ban on having one built for you seems at
>>> least inconsistent. And the implication that having personally
>>> constructed the aircraft somehow enhances its performance or
>>> suitability for operation in the NAS is ludicrous, IMO. To me, the
>>> 51% policy smacks of protectionism for normal/utility aircraft
>>> manufacturers.
>>>
>>> I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority of
>>> armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able to
>>> afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to find
>>> an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections. What am I
>>> missing?
>>
>> Your frontal lobes, from all appearances...
>
> Amusing Rich, sorta, but I find no argument that can untrack Larry's.
>
> None.
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

How about this argument: Until a century or so ago, a landowner held rights
from the center of the earth to the heavens. Nothing could pass over his
land without his permission. Since there were no aircraft, the issue didn't
come up very often. When flight became possible, this property theory was
changed to allow overflight; however, overflight was not a right given by
God, but a negotiated privilege enforced by governments through legislation
and courts. Because flying over other people's property without permission
has never been a right, and certainly was not even a privilege at the time
the Constitution was written, how do you libertarians come up with any basis
for arguing that the government has limited authority in regulating
aviation? Aviation would not exist in this country without government
action.

In the U.S., with a few exceptions, flying machines need Airworthiness
Certificates to fly. Airworthiness Certificates are issued by the
government. They are not issued or denied arbitrarily. If you do not wish
to meet requirements for issue of an Airworthiness Certificate, your
home-built project could be a nice static display. That is the ultimate
penalty for ignoring or circumventing requirements.

Dale Scroggins

Morgans[_2_]

March 8th 08, 03:07 AM

"William Hung" > wrote I agree with you to a certain
point. I think that there arepeople out
there who are better off having 'one made for them' than to have them
make it themselves. I know people will say, 'so let them get a
certified one!' Well... just well...

They still have the freedom to go out and buy an experimental that was
constructed by someone else, under the rights allowed the person that built
it, as educational/recreational.

Until the regulations are change to allow people to build airplanes for
hire, and not have to be certified, that is the only way to go, except the
limitations of LSA.

You don't like a reg, get it changed. You don't have the right to screw it
up for me, when I decide to build-legally, under the current amateur built
provisions.
--
Jim in NC

William Hung[_2_]

March 8th 08, 03:36 AM

On Mar 7, 10:07*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "William Hung" > wrote I agree with you to a certain
> point. *I think that there arepeople out
> there who are better off having 'one made for them' than to have them
> make it themselves. *I know people will say, 'so let them get a
> certified one!' *Well... just well...
>
> They still have the freedom to go out and buy an experimental that was
> constructed by someone else, under the rights allowed the person that built
> it, as educational/recreational.
>
> Until the regulations are change to allow people to build airplanes for
> hire, and not have to be certified, that is the only way to go, except the
> limitations of LSA.
>
> You don't like a reg, get it changed. *You don't have the right to screw it
> up for me, when I decide to build-legally, under the current amateur built
> provisions.
> --
> Jim in NC

It's not that I don't like the reg or wanting them changed, I just
want to be able to get help on my project if I get to a point where I
think, 'Hey maybe I'm not so confident about doing this part myself'.
I am still thinking about building my own plane, but that time hasn't
yet arrived.

I can see stol's point of view that there are people out there with
more money than brains. People who pay pros to do their work an
claiming credit for it. Those people are slimeballs, I agree.

Wil

Ron Wanttaja

March 8th 08, 04:42 AM

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:11:34 GMT, "Blueskies" >
wrote:

>
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message ...
> > Acepilot > wrote:
> >
> >>What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
> >>"kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
> >>builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
> >>finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow
> >>for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for
> >>the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they
> >>themselves did not build 51%.
> >>
> >>Scott
> >
> > "pro built" in my message means that you pay someone to build it.
>
> Why should this not be allowed? This is a free country, maybe...

Certainly! And that's why the Experimental-Exhibition category exists. The
Experimental Amateur-Built category is specifically for those who build aircraft
for education or recreation. If someone wants to build a plane for money, let
them get them certified in one of the other five Experimental categories. Heck,
there are over 5,000 planes certified as Experimental Exhibition, it's not like
it's new territory.

Ron Wanttaja

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 8th 08, 04:43 AM

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:11:34 GMT, "Blueskies" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Acepilot > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
>>>>"kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
>>>>builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
>>>>finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow
>>>>for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for
>>>>the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they
>>>>themselves did not build 51%.
>>>>
>>>>Scott
>>>
>>>"pro built" in my message means that you pay someone to build it.
>>
>>Why should this not be allowed? This is a free country, maybe...
>
>
> Certainly! And that's why the Experimental-Exhibition category exists. The
> Experimental Amateur-Built category is specifically for those who build aircraft
> for education or recreation. If someone wants to build a plane for money, let
> them get them certified in one of the other five Experimental categories. Heck,
> there are over 5,000 planes certified as Experimental Exhibition, it's not like
> it's new territory.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Wouldn't you love to see the RV-6 as a certified airplane!

Ron Wanttaja

March 8th 08, 04:45 AM

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:15:52 GMT, "Blueskies" >
wrote:

>
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message ...
> > wrote:
> > All that said, the most common
> >>argument (not necessarily one with which I'm in agreement) in favor of
> >>professional builds of experimental aircraft is that the pro shops
> >>turn >out a better quality product which is less likely to injure or kill
> >>the >proverbial innocent bystander. Even if we accept that at face value
> >>(which I certainly don't), it begs for the creation of a new
> >>experimental sub-category, perhaps Experimental Professional Built,
> >>with increased oversight akin to that suffered by the standard category
> >>manufacturers in pursuing and maintaining their type certificates.
> >
> > I also don't agree that innocents are less likely to be killed by a
> > pro built plane. Show me the stats to prove it.
> >
> > The real killer is that the customer of a pro built plane may also get
> > the repairman's certificate which means that he lied about building
> > it.
> >
> > Ron Lee
>
>
> It would be very interesting for someone to be charged with operating an illegally built aircraft. How would this be
> challenged in the courts?

I don't think they'd be charged with operating an illegally-built aircraft, but
if they applied for the Repairman Certificate, they could be charged with
perjury.

In any case, the FAA could just cancel the plane's airworthiness certificate,
and the person who bought it from the hired gun would be out the ~$50K-$250K he
paid for it.

Ron Wanttaja

WJRFlyBoy

March 8th 08, 06:35 AM

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:50:33 GMT, Dale Scroggins wrote:

>>>> I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority of
>>>> armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able to
>>>> afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to find
>>>> an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections. What am I
>>>> missing?
>>>
>>> Your frontal lobes, from all appearances...
>>
>> Amusing Rich, sorta, but I find no argument that can untrack Larry's.
>>
>> None.
>> --

>
> How about this argument: Until a century or so ago, a landowner held rights
> from the center of the earth to the heavens. Nothing could pass over his
> land without his permission. Since there were no aircraft, the issue didn't
> come up very often. When flight became possible, this property theory was
> changed to allow overflight; however, overflight was not a right given by
> God, but a negotiated privilege enforced by governments through legislation
> and courts. Because flying over other people's property without permission
> has never been a right, and certainly was not even a privilege at the time
> the Constitution was written, how do you libertarians come up with any basis
> for arguing that the government has limited authority in regulating
> aviation? Aviation would not exist in this country without government
> action.
>
> In the U.S., with a few exceptions, flying machines need Airworthiness
> Certificates to fly. Airworthiness Certificates are issued by the
> government. They are not issued or denied arbitrarily. If you do not wish
> to meet requirements for issue of an Airworthiness Certificate, your
> home-built project could be a nice static display. That is the ultimate
> penalty for ignoring or circumventing requirements.
>
> Dale Scroggins

Thx, I understand the federal and statutory history but, I don't believe,
that is the issue here.

Here is my personal example. I don't have the expertise or time to kit or
plan build. These planes are, at least, the equivalent or superior to the
major manufacturers. If they are not, then I don't understand why the FAA
would allow them.

Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane. If this isn't to
control the entry plane market place (or the maj mfgs market), then why is
the restriction imposed. I understand all the philosophical and why ppl
have immense pride in their own-builds but that is not relevant to the
issue at hand.

Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price. Yet we
have USA built planes off better value that are restricted from my purchase
because I can't flip fiberglass?

--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

[email protected]

March 8th 08, 06:45 AM

In rec.aviation.piloting WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane.

Sure you can.

See any airplanes for sale web site.

You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original builder.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 8th 08, 06:46 AM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:50:33 GMT, Dale Scroggins wrote:
>
>
>>>>>I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority of
>>>>>armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those able to
>>>>>afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I fail to find
>>>>>an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections. What am I
>>>>>missing?
>>>>
>>>>Your frontal lobes, from all appearances...
>>>
>>>Amusing Rich, sorta, but I find no argument that can untrack Larry's.
>>>
>>>None.
>>>--
>
>
>>How about this argument: Until a century or so ago, a landowner held rights
>>from the center of the earth to the heavens. Nothing could pass over his
>>land without his permission. Since there were no aircraft, the issue didn't
>>come up very often. When flight became possible, this property theory was
>>changed to allow overflight; however, overflight was not a right given by
>>God, but a negotiated privilege enforced by governments through legislation
>>and courts. Because flying over other people's property without permission
>>has never been a right, and certainly was not even a privilege at the time
>>the Constitution was written, how do you libertarians come up with any basis
>>for arguing that the government has limited authority in regulating
>>aviation? Aviation would not exist in this country without government
>>action.
>>
>>In the U.S., with a few exceptions, flying machines need Airworthiness
>>Certificates to fly. Airworthiness Certificates are issued by the
>>government. They are not issued or denied arbitrarily. If you do not wish
>>to meet requirements for issue of an Airworthiness Certificate, your
>>home-built project could be a nice static display. That is the ultimate
>>penalty for ignoring or circumventing requirements.
>>
>>Dale Scroggins
>
>
> Thx, I understand the federal and statutory history but, I don't believe,
> that is the issue here.
>
> Here is my personal example. I don't have the expertise or time to kit or
> plan build. These planes are, at least, the equivalent or superior to the
> major manufacturers. If they are not, then I don't understand why the FAA
> would allow them.
>
> Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane. If this isn't to
> control the entry plane market place (or the maj mfgs market), then why is
> the restriction imposed. I understand all the philosophical and why ppl
> have immense pride in their own-builds but that is not relevant to the
> issue at hand.
>
> Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price. Yet we
> have USA built planes off better value that are restricted from my purchase
> because I can't flip fiberglass?
>
>
>
>

Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB airplane.
But the biulder can not build and register another of the same kind.

That puts him in unfair competition with the certified manufacturers
who went to the expense and trouble to certify their airplanes.

WJRFlyBoy

March 8th 08, 07:27 AM

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:45:03 GMT, wrote:

> In rec.aviation.piloting WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
>> Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane.
>
> Sure you can.
>
> See any airplanes for sale web site.
>
> You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original builder.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 8th 08, 07:28 AM

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:46:47 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:

>> Thx, I understand the federal and statutory history but, I don't believe,
>> that is the issue here.
>>
>> Here is my personal example. I don't have the expertise or time to kit or
>> plan build. These planes are, at least, the equivalent or superior to the
>> major manufacturers. If they are not, then I don't understand why the FAA
>> would allow them.
>>
>> Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane. If this isn't to
>> control the entry plane market place (or the maj mfgs market), then why is
>> the restriction imposed. I understand all the philosophical and why ppl
>> have immense pride in their own-builds but that is not relevant to the
>> issue at hand.
>>
>> Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price. Yet we
>> have USA built planes off better value that are restricted from my purchase
>> because I can't flip fiberglass?
>>
>
> Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB airplane.
> But the biulder can not build and register another of the same kind.
>
> That puts him in unfair competition with the certified manufacturers
> who went to the expense and trouble to certify their airplanes.

Appreciate the comment. If certification has value, why does this put him
in unfair competition?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 8th 08, 07:29 AM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:46:47 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:
>
>
>>>Thx, I understand the federal and statutory history but, I don't believe,
>>>that is the issue here.
>>>
>>>Here is my personal example. I don't have the expertise or time to kit or
>>>plan build. These planes are, at least, the equivalent or superior to the
>>>major manufacturers. If they are not, then I don't understand why the FAA
>>>would allow them.
>>>
>>>Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane. If this isn't to
>>>control the entry plane market place (or the maj mfgs market), then why is
>>>the restriction imposed. I understand all the philosophical and why ppl
>>>have immense pride in their own-builds but that is not relevant to the
>>>issue at hand.
>>>
>>>Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price. Yet we
>>>have USA built planes off better value that are restricted from my purchase
>>>because I can't flip fiberglass?
>>>
>>
>>Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB airplane.
>>But the biulder can not build and register another of the same kind.
>>
>>That puts him in unfair competition with the certified manufacturers
>>who went to the expense and trouble to certify their airplanes.
>
>
> Appreciate the comment. If certification has value, why does this put him
> in unfair competition?

Because it takes time and money.

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 8th 08, 08:00 AM

>> Appreciate the comment. If certification has value, why does this put him
>> in unfair competition?
>
>
>
> Because it takes time and money.
>

Replying to myself (because it's late)...

Ok first:

Certifications says that the airplane meets minimum standards for
controlability and performance. That is not the case with X-AB.

The airplane can be manufactured in quanity and sold freely.
But the design is then frozen.
No changes are allowed without recertification.

Experimental amateur built allows you to build an airplane for your own
education and recreation.

It does not have to meet FAA standards of any kind.

Usually the neophyte builder has some tool skills - but no where near
what he (or she!) will have when finished.
That's part of the education part.

But one who says he can't - before trying - is usually right.

Second:

Fiberglass is laid, not flipped.
And dog gone near anybody can learn to do it.
It's not magic.
Just messy. :)

And Lastly:

I humbly suggest that if you are going to come in here with that handle,
you need to make a much more active effort at educating yourself.

This is a very technical forum.

And there are some very talented and knowledgable people who hang here.

They mostly don't care for trolls.

For what it's worth...

Richard

WingFlaps

March 8th 08, 08:57 AM

On Mar 8, 5:36*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:

> He got his money back in the deal after his lawyer made it very clear
> that there would either be a wire in the buyers account that day or a
> call would be made to the FAA.- Hide quoted text -
>
Isn't that blackmail?

Cheers

Morgans[_2_]

March 8th 08, 09:38 AM

"cavelamb himself" > wrote

> Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB airplane.
> But the biulder can not build and register another of the same kind.

Really? Where did you get that information? Do you know of a case where a
builder was denied the second airplane's airworthiness permit?
--
Jim in NC

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 10:10 AM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:50:33 GMT, Dale Scroggins wrote:
>
>>>>> I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion among the majority
>>>>> of armature aircraft builders, but emotional jealousy of those
>>>>> able to afford commissioning the construction of an aircraft, I
>>>>> fail to find an _objective_ reason for homebuilders' objections.
>>>>> What am I missing?
>>>>
>>>> Your frontal lobes, from all appearances...
>>>
>>> Amusing Rich, sorta, but I find no argument that can untrack
>>> Larry's.
>>>
>>> None.
>>> --
>
>>
>> How about this argument: Until a century or so ago, a landowner held
>> rights from the center of the earth to the heavens. Nothing could
>> pass over his land without his permission. Since there were no
>> aircraft, the issue didn't come up very often. When flight became
>> possible, this property theory was changed to allow overflight;
>> however, overflight was not a right given by God, but a negotiated
>> privilege enforced by governments through legislation and courts.
>> Because flying over other people's property without permission has
>> never been a right, and certainly was not even a privilege at the
>> time the Constitution was written, how do you libertarians come up
>> with any basis for arguing that the government has limited authority
>> in regulating aviation? Aviation would not exist in this country
>> without government action.
>>
>> In the U.S., with a few exceptions, flying machines need
>> Airworthiness Certificates to fly. Airworthiness Certificates are
>> issued by the government. They are not issued or denied arbitrarily.
>> If you do not wish to meet requirements for issue of an
>> Airworthiness Certificate, your home-built project could be a nice
>> static display. That is the ultimate penalty for ignoring or
>> circumventing requirements.
>>
>> Dale Scroggins
>
> Thx, I understand the federal and statutory history but, I don't
> believe, that is the issue here.
>
> Here is my personal example. I don't have the expertise or time to kit
> or plan build. These planes are, at least, the equivalent or superior
> to the major manufacturers. If they are not, then I don't understand
> why the FAA would allow them.

Which airplane?
>
> Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane. If this isn't to
> control the entry plane market place (or the maj mfgs market), then
> why is the restriction imposed. I understand all the philosophical and
> why ppl have immense pride in their own-builds but that is not
> relevant to the issue at hand.
>
> Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price. Yet
> we have USA built planes off better value that are restricted from my
> purchase because I can't flip fiberglass?
>

So, if someone builds a BD% on commision for you you think that's safer
than a 172?

That's what we're talking about.

Bertie
>
>
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 10:12 AM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:45:03 GMT, wrote:
>
>> In rec.aviation.piloting WJRFlyBoy >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane.
>>
>> Sure you can.
>>
>> See any airplanes for sale web site.
>>
>> You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original
>> builder.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them?

the origianl builder is the manufacturer. He can effect any maintenance
or repeair on the airplane he likes...You buy it , you can't.

Th ereason is pretty obvious. He has demonstrated he knows what he is
doing and has effectively been issued a resticted airframe or airframe
and powerplant licence.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 10:18 AM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:46:47 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:
>
>>> Thx, I understand the federal and statutory history but, I don't
>>> believe, that is the issue here.
>>>
>>> Here is my personal example. I don't have the expertise or time to
>>> kit or plan build. These planes are, at least, the equivalent or
>>> superior to the major manufacturers. If they are not, then I don't
>>> understand why the FAA would allow them.
>>>
>>> Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane. If this isn't to
>>> control the entry plane market place (or the maj mfgs market), then
>>> why is the restriction imposed. I understand all the philosophical
>>> and why ppl have immense pride in their own-builds but that is not
>>> relevant to the issue at hand.
>>>
>>> Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price.
>>> Yet we have USA built planes off better value that are restricted
>>> from my purchase because I can't flip fiberglass?
>>>
>>
>> Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB
>> airplane. But the biulder can not build and register another of the
>> same kind.
>>
>> That puts him in unfair competition with the certified manufacturers
>> who went to the expense and trouble to certify their airplanes.
>
> Appreciate the comment. If certification has value, why does this put
> him in unfair competition?

Because it cost many millions to certify an airplane. It doesn;'t cost
anything to kit a homebuilt. We're not just talking about RVs here. There
are some major crooks and nutjobs out there selling dreams. Peopkle have
died in them. Now, if you want to build one of these yourself, and you can
build anything you want, BTW, the FAA really only looks to see if it was
put together properly, then off you go and more power to you. That's
experimenting. But to try and sell some of these things as capable
airplanes would be criminal. I think some of the kitplanes around are
crimes against nature as it is, but there ya go..
The RVs could probably be certified pretty easily. A couple of air forces
are even using them as trainers and there have been thousands built, so a
lot of th eR&D is already done.

Bertie

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 10:21 AM

William Hung > wrote in
:

> On Mar 7, 10:07*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "William Hung" > wrote I agree with you to a
>> certain point. *I think that there arepeople out
>> there who are better off having 'one made for them' than to have them
>> make it themselves. *I know people will say, 'so let them get a
>> certified one!' *Well... just well...
>>
>> They still have the freedom to go out and buy an experimental that
>> was constructed by someone else, under the rights allowed the person
>> that buil
> t
>> it, as educational/recreational.
>>
>> Until the regulations are change to allow people to build airplanes
>> for hire, and not have to be certified, that is the only way to go,
>> except the
>
>> limitations of LSA.
>>
>> You don't like a reg, get it changed. *You don't have the right to
>> screw
> it
>> up for me, when I decide to build-legally, under the current amateur
>> built
>
>> provisions.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> It's not that I don't like the reg or wanting them changed, I just
> want to be able to get help on my project if I get to a point where I
> think, 'Hey maybe I'm not so confident about doing this part myself'.
> I am still thinking about building my own plane, but that time hasn't
> yet arrived.

That's no problem. That's sinificantly different from writing a check
and having someone build one for you. The airplanes in that class
usually are available with center sections built and so on, so there;s
no excuse to take it further.
>
> I can see stol's point of view that there are people out there with
> more money than brains. People who pay pros to do their work an
> claiming credit for it. Those people are slimeballs, I agree.
>

And the more salient point is there are slimeballs out there who will
sell you an airplane that is a deathtrap..

Time for Juan Jiminez to enter.....

Bertue

Blueskies

March 8th 08, 12:09 PM

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> It would be very interesting for someone to be charged with operating an illegally built aircraft. How would this be
>> challenged in the courts?
>
> I don't think they'd be charged with operating an illegally-built aircraft, but
> if they applied for the Repairman Certificate, they could be charged with
> perjury.
>
> In any case, the FAA could just cancel the plane's airworthiness certificate,
> and the person who bought it from the hired gun would be out the ~$50K-$250K he
> paid for it.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Just because the FAA cancels the airworthiness certificate doesn't make the aircraft any more or less 'airworthy'.

Have you seen the justification presented to re-register aircraft every 3 years? Looks like the FAA can't enforce
current regulations. So they write more?

I seem to remember it costs something like 10 million to certify a 'car' to run on roads in the US of A. The cost to
certify an aircraft is insane. There needs to be a middle ground where a sound safe design can be produced (built)
without the muda and hindrances of our govment.

Blueskies

March 8th 08, 12:17 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message ...
> WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:45:03 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>> In rec.aviation.piloting WJRFlyBoy >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane.
>>>
>>> Sure you can.
>>>
>>> See any airplanes for sale web site.
>>>
>>> You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original
>>> builder.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them?
>
> the origianl builder is the manufacturer. He can effect any maintenance
> or repeair on the airplane he likes...You buy it , you can't.
>
>
> Th ereason is pretty obvious. He has demonstrated he knows what he is
> doing and has effectively been issued a resticted airframe or airframe
> and powerplant licence.
>
>
> Bertie
>

Not exactly. The buyer can go all the maintenance, they just cannot sign off the annual condition inspection. You still
have a bonus here also, an A&P can sign off the inspection; you don't need an AI. If the buyer wanted to make a major
change, like maybe put in a different more powerful engine, then the stakes are higher. In that case, depending on how
the ops limitations are written, the plane may need to fly off the initial hours within the 25 mile confines..

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 12:34 PM

"Blueskies" > wrote in
t:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:45:03 GMT, wrote:
>>>
>>>> In rec.aviation.piloting WJRFlyBoy >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane.
>>>>
>>>> Sure you can.
>>>>
>>>> See any airplanes for sale web site.
>>>>
>>>> You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original
>>>> builder.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jim Pennino
>>>
>>> Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them?
>>
>> the origianl builder is the manufacturer. He can effect any
>> maintenance or repeair on the airplane he likes...You buy it , you
>> can't.
>>
>>
>> Th ereason is pretty obvious. He has demonstrated he knows what he is
>> doing and has effectively been issued a resticted airframe or
>> airframe and powerplant licence.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Not exactly. The buyer can go all the maintenance, they just cannot
> sign off the annual condition inspection. You still have a bonus here
> also, an A&P can sign off the inspection; you don't need an AI. If the
> buyer wanted to make a major change, like maybe put in a different
> more powerful engine, then the stakes are higher. In that case,
> depending on how the ops limitations are written, the plane may need
> to fly off the initial hours within the 25 mile confines..
>
>

You're right, of course. I was aiming more for the spirit of the law
than the letter. My own view is that the laws are pretty sensible the
way they stand with the exception of the loophole which effectively
allows manufacture without certification. The FAA already relaxed
certification significantly with the LSA thing, which i do hope won'[t
be abused in the same way by there being absolute junk foisted in the
unsuspecting. So far it seems to be working better than I would have
imagined.

Bertie

Acepilot

March 8th 08, 01:19 PM

No repairman's certificate (not a "right" but a "priviledge").

WJRFlyBoy wrote:

>>
>>You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original builder.
>>
>>--
>>Jim Pennino
>
>
> Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them?

Acepilot

March 8th 08, 01:23 PM

I agree. On one of Van's promotional videotapes, there's a comment that
one guy built "3 RV-3s and yes, an RV-4." Did the second and third
RV-3s not cert airworthiness certificates?

Morgans wrote:
> "cavelamb himself" > wrote
>
>
>>Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB airplane.
>>But the biulder can not build and register another of the same kind.
>
>
> Really? Where did you get that information? Do you know of a case where a
> builder was denied the second airplane's airworthiness permit?

Acepilot

March 8th 08, 01:25 PM

That's not the way I understand it (an the question has been asked to
EAA as well). I own an experimental that I didn't build. I can do any
maintenance and/or mod I want. The only thing I can't do is the yearly
condition inspection.

Scott

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:45:03 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In rec.aviation.piloting WJRFlyBoy >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane.
>>>
>>>Sure you can.
>>>
>>>See any airplanes for sale web site.
>>>
>>>You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original
>>>builder.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Jim Pennino
>>
>>Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them?
>
>
> the origianl builder is the manufacturer. He can effect any maintenance
> or repeair on the airplane he likes...You buy it , you can't.
>
>
> Th ereason is pretty obvious. He has demonstrated he knows what he is
> doing and has effectively been issued a resticted airframe or airframe
> and powerplant licence.
>
>
> Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 02:50 PM

Acepilot > wrote in
:

> That's not the way I understand it (an the question has been asked to
> EAA as well). I own an experimental that I didn't build. I can do any
> maintenance and/or mod I want. The only thing I can't do is the yearly
> condition inspection.

OK, my bad....

Bertie

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 8th 08, 03:46 PM

Morgans wrote:
> "cavelamb himself" > wrote
>
>
>>Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB airplane.
>>But the biulder can not build and register another of the same kind.
>
>
> Really? Where did you get that information? Do you know of a case where a
> builder was denied the second airplane's airworthiness permit?

That was pretty common interpretation of this mess when I was a kid.

Back when FAA was doing "pre-close" inspections, they were a lot more
involved in the process.

Blueskies

March 8th 08, 03:58 PM

"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message ...
> Morgans wrote:
>> "cavelamb himself" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB airplane.
>>>But the biulder can not build and register another of the same kind.
>>
>>
>> Really? Where did you get that information? Do you know of a case where a
>> builder was denied the second airplane's airworthiness permit?
>
> That was pretty common interpretation of this mess when I was a kid.
>
> Back when FAA was doing "pre-close" inspections, they were a lot more
> involved in the process.
>

Ahhh, back in the days before entitlements really started sinking our govment and we truly received services...

[email protected]

March 8th 08, 05:45 PM

In rec.aviation.piloting WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:45:03 GMT, wrote:

> > In rec.aviation.piloting WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> >
> >> Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane.
> >
> > Sure you can.
> >
> > See any airplanes for sale web site.
> >
> > You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original builder.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino

> Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them?

The original builder can do any maintenance or modification he desires
while the buyer has to follow the same rules as if he had bought a
Cessna or Piper.

You lose those rights because that is the rule which is based on the
presumption that if you can build it, you can maintain it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Blueskies

March 8th 08, 06:16 PM

> wrote in message ...

> The original builder can do any maintenance or modification he desires
> while the buyer has to follow the same rules as if he had bought a
> Cessna or Piper.
>

Not true...

[email protected]

March 8th 08, 06:35 PM

In rec.aviation.piloting Blueskies > wrote:

> > wrote in message ...

> > The original builder can do any maintenance or modification he desires
> > while the buyer has to follow the same rules as if he had bought a
> > Cessna or Piper.
> >

> Not true...

Yeah, in retrospect I realized that.

Without multiple pages of details, the purchaser of a home built can
do less than the builder, but more than the buyer of a Cessna.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[email protected]

March 8th 08, 06:46 PM

On Mar 8, 12:45*pm, wrote:
> The original builder can do any maintenance or modification he desires
> while the buyer has to follow the same rules as if he had bought a
> Cessna or Piper.

Not true. It's actually very simple: Anyone can do anything to any
homebuilt, except sign off the annual condition inspection. That is
the only privilege conferred by the Repairman certificate. Someone
who doesn't hold the Repairman certificate for the particular plane in
question must have the annual condition inspection signed off by an
A&P. Any A&P will do; no IA required.

Ken

WJRFlyBoy

March 8th 08, 08:36 PM

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:12:35 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>>> Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane.
>>>
>>> Sure you can.
>>>
>>> See any airplanes for sale web site.
>>>
>>> You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original
>>> builder.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them?
>
> the origianl builder is the manufacturer. He can effect any maintenance
> or repeair on the airplane he likes...You buy it , you can't.
>
> Th ereason is pretty obvious. He has demonstrated he knows what he is
> doing and has effectively been issued a resticted airframe or airframe
> and powerplant licence.
>
> Bertie

The right to self-maintain is no loss of right for me. They call the police
when I simply look at a power tool. The ability to maintain isn't directly
tied to the ability to install (I've dropped engines, I couldn't tune a
fork).
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 08:39 PM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:12:35 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>>>> Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane.
>>>>
>>>> Sure you can.
>>>>
>>>> See any airplanes for sale web site.
>>>>
>>>> You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original
>>>> builder.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jim Pennino
>>>
>>> Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them?
>>
>> the origianl builder is the manufacturer. He can effect any
>> maintenance or repeair on the airplane he likes...You buy it , you
>> can't.
>>
>> Th ereason is pretty obvious. He has demonstrated he knows what he is
>> doing and has effectively been issued a resticted airframe or
>> airframe and powerplant licence.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The right to self-maintain is no loss of right for me. They call the
> police when I simply look at a power tool. The ability to maintain
> isn't directly tied to the ability to install (I've dropped engines, I
> couldn't tune a fork).

He he

Bertie

WJRFlyBoy

March 8th 08, 08:43 PM

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:29:05 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:

>>>>Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price. Yet we
>>>>have USA built planes off better value that are restricted from my purchase
>>>>because I can't flip fiberglass?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB airplane.
>>>But the biulder can not build and register another of the same kind.
>>>
>>>That puts him in unfair competition with the certified manufacturers
>>>who went to the expense and trouble to certify their airplanes.
>>
>> Appreciate the comment. If certification has value, why does this put him
>> in unfair competition?
>
> Because it takes time and money.

Which they (Cessna in this e.g.) reclaim in a higher price and profit. If
not, then the value of certification is seriously in question.

And "flipping" fiber is a racing term for Corvette rebuilds.

Your troll,

WJRFlyboy
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 8th 08, 08:49 PM

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:18:02 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>> Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB
>>> airplane. But the biulder can not build and register another of the
>>> same kind.
>>>
>>> That puts him in unfair competition with the certified manufacturers
>>> who went to the expense and trouble to certify their airplanes.
>>
>> Appreciate the comment. If certification has value, why does this put
>> him in unfair competition?
>
> Because it cost many millions to certify an airplane. It doesn;'t cost
> anything to kit a homebuilt. We're not just talking about RVs here. There
> are some major crooks and nutjobs out there selling dreams. Peopkle have
> died in them. Now, if you want to build one of these yourself, and you can
> build anything you want, BTW, the FAA really only looks to see if it was
> put together properly, then off you go and more power to you. That's
> experimenting. But to try and sell some of these things as capable
> airplanes would be criminal. I think some of the kitplanes around are
> crimes against nature as it is, but there ya go..

OK, so the FAA allows these planes under the guise of "experimental" they
certify planes and then there are experimental planes that are as good or
better than the certified planes (not talking engines whose
"certifications" are all over the place).

Is that about right?

If so, 1) where do you find the output which points to "good" kit/plan
planes and 2) what good is the FAA doing (other than restricting the good
builds for market related purposes)?

> The RVs could probably be certified pretty easily. A couple of air forces
> are even using them as trainers and there have been thousands built, so a
> lot of th eR&D is already done.

--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 8th 08, 08:55 PM

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 09:46:15 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:

> Morgans wrote:
>> "cavelamb himself" > wrote
>>
>>>Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB airplane.
>>>But the biulder can not build and register another of the same kind.
>>
>> Really? Where did you get that information? Do you know of a case where a
>> builder was denied the second airplane's airworthiness permit?
>
> That was pretty common interpretation of this mess when I was a kid.
>
> Back when FAA was doing "pre-close" inspections, they were a lot more
> involved in the process.

I humbly suggest that if you are going to come in here with that handle,
you need to make a much more active effort at educating yourself.

This is a very technical forum.

And there are some very talented and knowledgeable people who hang here.

They mostly don't care for trolls.

For what it's worth...

WJRFlyboy :)))
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 8th 08, 09:01 PM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:18:02 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>>> Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB
>>>> airplane. But the biulder can not build and register another of the
>>>> same kind.
>>>>
>>>> That puts him in unfair competition with the certified
>>>> manufacturers who went to the expense and trouble to certify their
>>>> airplanes.
>>>
>>> Appreciate the comment. If certification has value, why does this
>>> put him in unfair competition?
>>
>> Because it cost many millions to certify an airplane. It doesn;'t
>> cost anything to kit a homebuilt. We're not just talking about RVs
>> here. There are some major crooks and nutjobs out there selling
>> dreams. Peopkle have died in them. Now, if you want to build one of
>> these yourself, and you can build anything you want, BTW, the FAA
>> really only looks to see if it was put together properly, then off
>> you go and more power to you. That's experimenting. But to try and
>> sell some of these things as capable airplanes would be criminal. I
>> think some of the kitplanes around are crimes against nature as it
>> is, but there ya go..
>
> OK, so the FAA allows these planes under the guise of "experimental"
> they certify planes and then there are experimental planes that are as
> good or better than the certified planes (not talking engines whose
> "certifications" are all over the place).
>
> Is that about right?
>
> If so, 1) where do you find the output which points to "good" kit/plan
> planes and 2) what good is the FAA doing (other than restricting the
> good builds for market related purposes)?

The FAA made the rules in the late forties to accomodate guys who wanted
to make little putt putts like Piets and Longsters in their garages. The
rules haven;t changed significantly since then. You can draw out any
kind of airplane powered by any kind of engine you like on the back of a
napkin, go out and get material to build it from anywhere you like. you
can make it out of old beer cans if you like. The design can be as nutty
as you like. You're unlikely to get anything too stupid past them, but
you're pretty much given Carte Blanche in the design and matrials
department. So, you start to build it and then you can decide , before
you've even got a couple of opieces glued togethether you decide you
want to share this marvelous beast with the world. You advertise it on
the net and before you know it people ( crazy ones) are throwing money
at you asking you to build one for them. Lots of people have been burned
in many ways through this sort of activity over the years and there's
nothing to distinguish a VanGruven airplane from one of these things
legally.

Bertie

WJRFlyBoy

March 8th 08, 09:03 PM

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:54:42 GMT, badbaz wrote:

>>>Yes I'm learning things and some would call that education which it
>>>is, but I'll state outright, that has nothing to do with me building.
>>>I'm building because I like to do it! I'd get more enjoyment out of
>>>building another because I could do it more efficiently, faster, and
>>>cheaper. HOWEVER if I ever do get the thing finished and I'm able to
>>>fly it, my main/only reason for building at that time would be "flying
>>>an airplane I constructed myself".
>>>
>>>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> Being an old fart I remember when Cessna, Piper &co. nearly went belly up
> due to ambulance chasers. Cessna even shut down its production lines for
> piston aircraft because of it.

Lived in Wichita a few years, remember this.

> this is where the expermentals saved their
> collective bacons as the lawyers found that individuals didn't have big
> cheque books to raid. Cessna only recommencet production after congress
> changed the litigation laws, now if become a pro builder to the lawyers you
> are a manufactures so whach out!

Let me see if I understand, at some (unknown) point, a builder who sells
becomes a manufacturer for reasons of litigation.

That's a good point. Then as a Buyer, I might have rights of recourse on
the designer, builder and, perhaps, the engine (re) manufacturer. Hmmm.
Case law anyone?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

Peter Dohm

March 8th 08, 09:23 PM

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 09:46:15 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:
>
>> Morgans wrote:
>>> "cavelamb himself" > wrote
>>>
>>>>Actually, jst to keep the record straight, you CAN buy an X-AB airplane.
>>>>But the biulder can not build and register another of the same kind.
>>>
>>> Really? Where did you get that information? Do you know of a case
>>> where a
>>> builder was denied the second airplane's airworthiness permit?
>>
>> That was pretty common interpretation of this mess when I was a kid.
>>
>> Back when FAA was doing "pre-close" inspections, they were a lot more
>> involved in the process.
>
> I humbly suggest that if you are going to come in here with that handle,
> you need to make a much more active effort at educating yourself.
>
> This is a very technical forum.
>
> And there are some very talented and knowledgeable people who hang here.
>
> They mostly don't care for trolls.
>
> For what it's worth...
>
> WJRFlyboy :)))
> --

I presume that you are new around here.

Peter

WJRFlyBoy

March 8th 08, 11:27 PM

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 21:01:53 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>> OK, so the FAA allows these planes under the guise of "experimental"
>> they certify planes and then there are experimental planes that are as
>> good or better than the certified planes (not talking engines whose
>> "certifications" are all over the place).
>>
>> Is that about right?
>>
>> If so, 1) where do you find the output which points to "good" kit/plan
>> planes and 2) what good is the FAA doing (other than restricting the
>> good builds for market related purposes)?
>
> The FAA made the rules in the late forties to accomodate guys who wanted
> to make little putt putts like Piets and Longsters in their garages. The
> rules haven;t changed significantly since then. You can draw out any
> kind of airplane powered by any kind of engine you like on the back of a
> napkin, go out and get material to build it from anywhere you like. you
> can make it out of old beer cans if you like. The design can be as nutty
> as you like. You're unlikely to get anything too stupid past them, but
> you're pretty much given Carte Blanche in the design and matrials
> department. So, you start to build it and then you can decide , before
> you've even got a couple of opieces glued togethether you decide you
> want to share this marvelous beast with the world. You advertise it on
> the net and before you know it people ( crazy ones) are throwing money
> at you asking you to build one for them. Lots of people have been burned
> in many ways through this sort of activity over the years and there's
> nothing to distinguish a VanGruven airplane from one of these things
> legally.
>
> Bertie

Thx for that.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

Rich S.[_1_]

March 8th 08, 11:41 PM

"Dale Scroggins" > wrote in message
...
>
> . . .Because flying over other people's property without permission has
> never been a right, and certainly was not even a privilege at the time the
> Constitution was written, how do you libertarians come up with any basis
> for arguing that the government has limited authority in regulating
> aviation?

I suggest a quick review of the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the
Constitution of the U.S. It has become a common fallacy to say. "if a
certain right is not enumerated in the Constitution, it therefore does not
exist". Nothing could be further from the truth. The Constitution does not
grant rights to the people - it restricts the powers of government.

> Aviation would not exist in this country without government action.

You cannot be serious.

Rich S.
(retaining the cross-posting because I assume Mr. Scroggins is reading
rec.aviation.piloting)

Rich S.[_1_]

March 8th 08, 11:52 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...

> . . .Now, if you want to build one of these yourself, and you can
> build anything you want, BTW, the FAA really only looks to see if it was
> put together properly, then off you go and more power to you.

You must have a real generous FAA office. Nine years ago (before DAR's came
in to the picture) the FAA "inspector" who checked my airplane was only
interested in seeing that the paperwork was complete and that the required
placards, registration numbers, and signage was in compliance. He checked
nothing else and when I specifically asked his opinion of an aileron control
cable bellcrank, he commented that it was "nicely done". There were no
safety wires or cotter pins installed yet, as it was going be disassembled
for the trip to the airport.

Years before that, I knew a couple of the inspectors in the SEA FSDO. They
were knowledgeable gentlemen who would, according to the rules, sign off
anything you built - even if it was cast from concrete. However, they would
contact members of the local EAA chapter to try to talk some sense into the
builder. If that failed, they would establish rules for the test period
which would make it impossible for the builder to fly off his time. That was
their only loophole. Something like, "Test flying will be conducted between
the hour of sunrise until 6:00 am in the Mohave Desert".

Things have changed with a DAR's certification and liability, but the FAA
has nothing directly to do with inspection.

If I'm wrong (and things change overnight), never mind.

Rich S.

Morgans[_2_]

March 9th 08, 12:13 AM

> wrote

> The original builder can do any maintenance or modification he desires
> while the buyer has to follow the same rules as if he had bought a
> Cessna or Piper.
>
> You lose those rights because that is the rule which is based on the
> presumption that if you can build it, you can maintain it.

Nope.

The buyer may do any work or modifications he wants, unless it is considered
major, then he/she may have to go though a testing phase again, like when it
was new.

The ONLY thing the second owner may not do is the yearly condition
inspection. That must be done by the original owner, if he had the repair
privileges, or by an IA or A&P.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans[_2_]

March 9th 08, 12:47 AM

> wrote

must have the annual condition inspection signed off by an
A&P. Any A&P will do; no IA required.

Damn! I always get that part of it messed up!

You are right, of course.
--
Jim in NC

Stuart & Kathryn Fields

March 9th 08, 12:55 AM

"Rich S." > wrote in message
. ..
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> . . .Now, if you want to build one of these yourself, and you can
>> build anything you want, BTW, the FAA really only looks to see if it was
>> put together properly, then off you go and more power to you.
>
> You must have a real generous FAA office. Nine years ago (before DAR's
> came in to the picture) the FAA "inspector" who checked my airplane was
> only interested in seeing that the paperwork was complete and that the
> required placards, registration numbers, and signage was in compliance. He
> checked nothing else and when I specifically asked his opinion of an
> aileron control cable bellcrank, he commented that it was "nicely done".
> There were no safety wires or cotter pins installed yet, as it was going
> be disassembled for the trip to the airport.
>
> Years before that, I knew a couple of the inspectors in the SEA FSDO. They
> were knowledgeable gentlemen who would, according to the rules, sign off
> anything you built - even if it was cast from concrete. However, they
> would contact members of the local EAA chapter to try to talk some sense
> into the builder. If that failed, they would establish rules for the test
> period which would make it impossible for the builder to fly off his time.
> That was their only loophole. Something like, "Test flying will be
> conducted between the hour of sunrise until 6:00 am in the Mohave Desert".
>
> Things have changed with a DAR's certification and liability, but the FAA
> has nothing directly to do with inspection.
>
> If I'm wrong (and things change overnight), never mind.
>
> Rich S.

Rich: Recently a friend of mine put together an original two seat helicopter
that used a modified Lycoming engine. Note when the modification was done,
the Lycoming tag is supposed to be removed as it is no longer considered a
Lycoming engine. Makes sense to me, but not to the FAA inspectors. As I
understand it was FAA employees from the local FSDO. They insisted that
the builder comply with Lycoming ADs before they would issue the
airworthiness. Too often the job of inspecting a homebuilt is really more
work than the "Busy" bureacrat wants to do so the paper work gets all the
attention. On my ship the DAR wanted a decal showing which was was open and
close on the throttle. Number one that decal is by necessity in a place
that you can't see when in operation. Number two if you need a decal to
inform you of the proper direction of rotation of a helicopter throttle you
surely should not be in there to start with. With all that said I did see
and talk to a DAR who had his feet well on the ground and kept his critique
useful and addressed reasonable items.
I'm not sure what an airworthiness certificate in an aircraft means other
than FAA has some paper work on file that acknowledges this aircraft's
existence.

Stu

stol

March 9th 08, 02:59 AM

On Mar 8, 5:47*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> > wrote
>
> *must have the annual condition inspection signed off by an
> A&P. *Any A&P will do; no IA required.
>
> Damn! *I always get that part of it messed up!
>
> You are right, of course.
> --
> Jim in NC

Aw. come on ol buddy. If you look at how you worded it you are
correct.

>The ONLY thing the second owner may not do is the yearly condition
>inspection. That must be done by the original owner, if he had the repair
>privileges, or by an IA or A&P.
--
>Jim in NC

An A&P can do a conditional inspection, so can a IA. The difference is
an A&P doesn't need a IA sign off. On a certified ship he does...

Cheers.

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com

Dale Scroggins[_2_]

March 9th 08, 03:22 AM

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "Dale Scroggins" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> . . .Because flying over other people's property without permission has
>> never been a right, and certainly was not even a privilege at the time
>> the Constitution was written, how do you libertarians come up with any
>> basis for arguing that the government has limited authority in regulating
>> aviation?
>
> I suggest a quick review of the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the
> Constitution of the U.S. It has become a common fallacy to say. "if a
> certain right is not enumerated in the Constitution, it therefore does not
> exist". Nothing could be further from the truth. The Constitution does not
> grant rights to the people - it restricts the powers of government.
>
I admit it has been a few years since I have reviewed the Ninth and Tenth
amendments. In twenty years of legal practice, I've not seen any
substantial claims or arguments based on either of these amendments. Most
references I see to them are in political arguments or usenet postings.
Could you point me to some references showing the impact of these amendments
on airspace law? I'd be especially be interested in the rights of states to
regulate air commerce, and of citizen rights to trespass in airspace owned
by others.

For that matter, perhaps you could point me to any significant body of case
law based upon either of these amendents.

>> Aviation would not exist in this country without government action.
>
> You cannot be serious.

Trespassing is serious in my part of the US. Trespassers are regularly
shot. I've patched bullet holes in airplanes that flew too low over hunting
leases. Property rights are deadly serious business here.

If you like, I can e-mail you articles on development of airspace law in
this country and others. Dry reading for most people.

>
> Rich S.
> (retaining the cross-posting because I assume Mr. Scroggins is reading
> rec.aviation.piloting)
>
>
I began building airplanes in 1972. I read rec.aviation.homebuilt
occasionally. You assumed wrong.

Dale Scroggins

WJRFlyBoy

March 9th 08, 03:23 AM

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 16:23:44 -0500, Peter Dohm wrote:

> I presume that you are new around here.
>
> Peter

Relatively, yes. Instruction set?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 9th 08, 03:24 AM

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:10:11 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>> Thx, I understand the federal and statutory history but, I don't
>> believe, that is the issue here.
>>
>> Here is my personal example. I don't have the expertise or time to kit
>> or plan build. These planes are, at least, the equivalent or superior
>> to the major manufacturers. If they are not, then I don't understand
>> why the FAA would allow them.
>
> Which airplane?

Velocity, Cozy or Van.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 9th 08, 03:25 AM

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:10:11 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>> Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane. If this isn't to
>> control the entry plane market place (or the maj mfgs market), then
>> why is the restriction imposed. I understand all the philosophical and
>> why ppl have immense pride in their own-builds but that is not
>> relevant to the issue at hand.
>>
>> Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price. Yet
>> we have USA built planes off better value that are restricted from my
>> purchase because I can't flip fiberglass?
>>
>
> So, if someone builds a BD% on commision for you you think that's safer
> than a 172?
>
> That's what we're talking about.
>
> Bertie

Don't know, I am going on the testimony of others that say that they are.
Of course, the FAA certainly would no tallow unsafe planes in the air.

Would they?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

Peter Dohm

March 9th 08, 03:50 AM

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 16:23:44 -0500, Peter Dohm wrote:
>
>> I presume that you are new around here.
>>
>> Peter
>
> Relatively, yes. Instruction set?
> --
Just keep reading for a while. It will become clear who are contributors of
usefull information and on which subjects, as it is not immediately obvious
from their handles.

WJRFlyBoy

March 9th 08, 06:29 AM

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 16:55:32 -0800, Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:

> Rich: Recently a friend of mine put together an original two seat helicopter
> that used a modified Lycoming engine. Note when the modification was done,
> the Lycoming tag is supposed to be removed as it is no longer considered a
> Lycoming engine. Makes sense to me, but not to the FAA inspectors. As I
> understand it was FAA employees from the local FSDO. They insisted that
> the builder comply with Lycoming ADs before they would issue the
> airworthiness. Too often the job of inspecting a homebuilt is really more
> work than the "Busy" bureacrat wants to do so the paper work gets all the
> attention. On my ship the DAR wanted a decal showing which was was open and
> close on the throttle. Number one that decal is by necessity in a place
> that you can't see when in operation. Number two if you need a decal to
> inform you of the proper direction of rotation of a helicopter throttle you
> surely should not be in there to start with. With all that said I did see
> and talk to a DAR who had his feet well on the ground and kept his critique
> useful and addressed reasonable items.
> I'm not sure what an airworthiness certificate in an aircraft means other
> than FAA has some paper work on file that acknowledges this aircraft's
> existence.
>
> Stu

FAA like any Fed agency works differently region to region. I don't doubt
your story for one moment. I wonder how much of it true across the FAA
"board".
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 01:30 PM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:10:11 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>> Thx, I understand the federal and statutory history but, I don't
>>> believe, that is the issue here.
>>>
>>> Here is my personal example. I don't have the expertise or time to
kit
>>> or plan build. These planes are, at least, the equivalent or
superior
>>> to the major manufacturers. If they are not, then I don't understand
>>> why the FAA would allow them.
>>
>> Which airplane?
>
> Velocity, Cozy or Van.

Then the designer should get them certified!

You can still buy one already built, though..

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 01:34 PM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:10:11 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>> Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane. If this isn't to
>>> control the entry plane market place (or the maj mfgs market), then
>>> why is the restriction imposed. I understand all the philosophical
and
>>> why ppl have immense pride in their own-builds but that is not
>>> relevant to the issue at hand.
>>>
>>> Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price.
Yet
>>> we have USA built planes off better value that are restricted from
my
>>> purchase because I can't flip fiberglass?
>>>
>>
>> So, if someone builds a BD% on commision for you you think that's
safer
>> than a 172?
>>
>> That's what we're talking about.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Don't know, I am going on the testimony of others that say that they
are.
> Of course, the FAA certainly would no tallow unsafe planes in the air.
>
> Would they?

Yeah, of course. They do it all the time. There are a few BD5s flying (
that was a typo) and they are most definitely quite dangerous. There are
a few other contraptions flying around that have some serious issues
structuarally, aerodynamically, etc. There's one particular type which
is quite popular in my local group that fortunately never seems to get
finished. The accident reports are littered with these things and I'm
terrified that one of the members is going to ask me to test fly theirs
for them. (think 180 mph VW)

Bertie

Rich S.[_1_]

March 9th 08, 02:26 PM

"Dale Scroggins" > wrote in message
...
>
> For that matter, perhaps you could point me to any significant body of
> case law based upon either of these amendents.

eck, I can't even point you to any significant body of law based on the
Second Amendment. We both know that the original intent of the Constitution
has been skewed by Congress and the Buracracy until it is unrecognizable. I
was speaking from the heart, not from actual practice.

>>> Aviation would not exist in this country without government action.
>>
>> You cannot be serious.
>
> Trespassing is serious in my part of the US. Trespassers are regularly
> shot. I've patched bullet holes in airplanes that flew too low over
> hunting leases. Property rights are deadly serious business here.

Depends on what you mean by "is". :))

The word "Aviation" as I understand it, is the science of flight. I guess
you were using it in a different sense. Government action had very little
effect upon the development of the science. It wasn't until the possibility
of government funding that Orville and Wilbur had to look to the French for
sales.

Good discussion, though. I'll leave the case law to you.

Rich S.

Rich S.[_1_]

March 9th 08, 02:28 PM

"Rich S." > wrote in message
. ..

Too early in the morning. Excuse the typos and spelling errors.

Rich S.

WJRFlyBoy

March 9th 08, 06:57 PM

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:30:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>> Which airplane?
>>
>> Velocity, Cozy or Van.
>
> Then the designer should get them certified!
>
> You can still buy one already built, though..
>
> Bertie

C'mon Bertie, a kit/plan guy can't afford certification (assuming it is
politically reasonable that he could).
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 9th 08, 07:00 PM

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:34:25 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>> So, if someone builds a BD% on commision for you you think that's
> safer
>>> than a 172?
>>>
>>> That's what we're talking about.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Don't know, I am going on the testimony of others that say that they
> are.
>> Of course, the FAA certainly would no tallow unsafe planes in the air.
>>
>> Would they?
>
> Yeah, of course. They do it all the time. There are a few BD5s flying (
> that was a typo) and they are most definitely quite dangerous. There are
> a few other contraptions flying around that have some serious issues
> structuarally, aerodynamically, etc. There's one particular type which
> is quite popular in my local group that fortunately never seems to get
> finished. The accident reports are littered with these things and I'm
> terrified that one of the members is going to ask me to test fly theirs
> for them. (think 180 mph VW)
>
> Bertie

Then who'se to say the Skywalker, for instance, certified to the hilt, is
safe? Aren't we back to Square One? FAA certification means exactly what?A
higher possibility of a safe aircraft?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 07:05 PM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:30:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>>> Which airplane?
>>>
>>> Velocity, Cozy or Van.
>>
>> Then the designer should get them certified!
>>
>> You can still buy one already built, though..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> C'mon Bertie, a kit/plan guy can't afford certification (assuming it
is
> politically reasonable that he could).

Exactly. The history of aviation is littered with disasters of
airplanes. You can't take something drawn on the back of a napkin and
just start selling them without some sort of test program. Dertification
lays that program out. If you buy a ready made airplane it's supposed to
meet certain criteria. You want a kitplane, build it yourself or buy one
second hand. THey are two different things..

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 9th 08, 07:07 PM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:34:25 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>>> So, if someone builds a BD% on commision for you you think that's
>> safer
>>>> than a 172?
>>>>
>>>> That's what we're talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Don't know, I am going on the testimony of others that say that they
>> are.
>>> Of course, the FAA certainly would no tallow unsafe planes in the
>>> air.
>>>
>>> Would they?
>>
>> Yeah, of course. They do it all the time. There are a few BD5s flying
>> ( that was a typo) and they are most definitely quite dangerous.
>> There are a few other contraptions flying around that have some
>> serious issues structuarally, aerodynamically, etc. There's one
>> particular type which is quite popular in my local group that
>> fortunately never seems to get finished. The accident reports are
>> littered with these things and I'm terrified that one of the members
>> is going to ask me to test fly theirs for them. (think 180 mph VW)
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Then who'se to say the Skywalker, for instance, certified to the hilt,
> is safe?

Safer than a BD5, that's for sure.

Look the RVs could easily be certified. If Dick vangruven wants thenm to
be he should go ahead and do it. It's not like he couldn[t get backing
for such an endeaver.

Aren't we back to Square One? FAA certification means exactly
> what?A higher possibility of a safe aircraft?

That's it exactly.

Fred the Red Shirt

March 9th 08, 07:17 PM

On Mar 7, 12:07 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> ...
>
> Right. Unless it can be demonstrated that such intrusion is
> reasonable and Constitutionally implemented, it's abuse of power, IMO.

Given how hard it would be to make a plane using only intrastate
materials, and how easy it is to fly one accross state borders,
and especially in view of other rulings on what constitutes
'interstate
commerce' there is little doubt that the courts would uphold
jurisdiction
based on the ICC.

That doesn't mean it isn't an abuse of power.

>
> >I also agree that the 51% policy seems to contain at least an element of
> >protectionism for manufacturers.

IIRC before there was a 51% rule, there was a time during which
homebuilts were not allowed at all. The original intent would seem
to have been to protect homebuilding, regardless of what it has
become today.

--

FF

Peter Dohm

March 10th 08, 01:05 AM

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:34:25 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>>> So, if someone builds a BD% on commision for you you think that's
>> safer
>>>> than a 172?
>>>>
>>>> That's what we're talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Don't know, I am going on the testimony of others that say that they
>> are.
>>> Of course, the FAA certainly would no tallow unsafe planes in the air.
>>>
>>> Would they?
>>
>> Yeah, of course. They do it all the time. There are a few BD5s flying (
>> that was a typo) and they are most definitely quite dangerous. There are
>> a few other contraptions flying around that have some serious issues
>> structuarally, aerodynamically, etc. There's one particular type which
>> is quite popular in my local group that fortunately never seems to get
>> finished. The accident reports are littered with these things and I'm
>> terrified that one of the members is going to ask me to test fly theirs
>> for them. (think 180 mph VW)
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Then who'se to say the Skywalker, for instance, certified to the hilt, is
> safe? Aren't we back to Square One? FAA certification means exactly what?A
> higher possibility of a safe aircraft?
> --
I would also add that certification also implies a degree of
mainatainability (if that is a real word) as well as fitness for a fairly
wide range of applications.

Basically, Part 23 is a set of generally accepted engineering standards; and
I agree with Bertie that the RV series appear to be quite capable of being
certified.

Peter
(Who's own doodles usually trade away one or more of those standards)

Highflyer

March 10th 08, 02:33 AM

"Acepilot" > wrote in message
.. .
> What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental "kit"
> was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur builder,
> am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I finish a
> second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe Blow for
> somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who applies for the
> repairman certificate should not be able to get it if they themselves did
> not build 51%.
>
> Scott
>
>

That is a reasonable question Scott. The traditional answer, that the FAA
has used for many years, was the magic number 'three.'

If you build the same design once or twice you are learning and still an
"amateur" building for "educational" purposes. After the third one, they
figure you have learned, and are now building for monetary purposes.

The type certification process was originally established to protect people
who bought airplanes built by some small company. Some built fine flyable
and safe airplanes and some did not. The ones who did not could not get
their products through the certification process. Certification requires
design review to accepted and published standards for most aspects of the
design, including the flyability and handling qualities.

Experimental amateur built airplanes, including kits, are not subject to
this type of review. I have flown some homebuilt aircraft that I would only
characterize as downright dangerous. I have flown others that meet or
exceed the requirements for certification in every way. The average is, as
you would expect, somewhere between those two extremes.

When you allow "professional builders" of "homebuilt" airplanes and allow
them to be licensed as "amateur built" it seems to be somewhat outside the
intent of the original legislation. It also avoids the certification
process which was established for the safety and protection of airplane
buyers. This was one of the primary reasons for establishing the CAA, which
later became the FAA.

Highflyer
PS: its flyin time ...
2008 Pinckneyville Rec Aviation Flyin

The annual flyin time is coming around again! I finally got to where I
could find things in the hangar again, which is a sure indication that it is
time to start flyin preparations!

The local motels will be filling up fast again so you may want to get your
reservations in as soon as you can if you want a close motel room.

WHEN: May 16, 17, and 18 this year. Once again, it is the full weekend
prior to the Memorial Day official weekend. This has become the traditional
historical date for the flyin. It allows folks to plan well ahead to this
incredible trek. For many it becomes the cross country trip that they talk
about to everyone that will hold still long enough to listen.

WHERE: Pinckneyville DuQuoin Airport, Pinckneyville, Illinois. PJY is the
airport identifier. Put K in front if you have a fussy GPS. We are about
80 miles southeast of the Arch in St. Louis. There is a 4001 foot ( have to
be over 4000 feet for jets! ) north-south runway ( 18L – 36R ) with an 1800
foot grass runway parallel to the northern half.
( 18R – 36L ) . There is no taxiway. This an access taxiway perpendicular
to the runways. We do have instrument approachs again, but they are GPS
approachs only.

WHAT: The annual t here day get together of the diehards on the
rec.aviation newsgroups. Buddy rides all day and hangar flying all night.
Other entertainment as happens. Beer, soda, and good food. The PJY
barbeque is world renowned, as are the uniquely HOT Italian sausages served
on Thursday night. The Red Lady should be flying this year.

WHO: Pilots, about to be Pilots, wannabe Pilots, and anybody else who is
willing to put up with a bunch of wild eyed folks who talk about airplanes
and flying all day and all night.

COST: This is not one of those “break the bank” flyins. Highflyer and Mary
try to keep the costs in line so that we can have a good time without being
rich. We do that because a lot of people who come to the flyin own
airplanes. We all know that people who own an airplane are not rich
anymore! We try to collect $25 from everyone to defray the cost of the
beverages and the groceries. We do breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day.
Usually we have baby back ribs, steak, and chicken on Saturday night.
Friday night we have something good. No one goes hungry. We do have
something for vegetarians.

ACCOMODATIONS: Pitch a tent next to your airplane if you like. There is no
charge for camping on the field. We have a couple of bathrooms, but no
showers. Generally, if someone really would like to shower one of the folks
in a motel can help you out. We do have a garden hose. There are places
you can park a camper or motorhome near the action. If you are really nice,
we can even run you out an extension cord for an electrical hookup. No
sewer hookups though.

If you want a motel there are several in the area now. The preferred flyin
motel is the Mainstreet Inn, in Pinckneyville. The lady who runs it always
puts up with our group graciously. One year she even shortsheeted every bed
in the place, for a small bribe!
Her phone number is 618-357-2128. The rates are quite reasonable.

A little fancier is the local Oxbow Bed and Breakfast. This is between the
airport and town, right on the edge of town. A number of our folks stay
there every year they come and speak very highly of the establishment.
Their phone number is 618-357-9839.

We always manage to arrange some kind of transportation to and from both of
these places. If they are full there are other motels in the area and
transportation can usually be managed with no particular problems.

HOW: Flying to PJY is the primo way to arrive. If that doesn’t work many
fly commercial to St. Louis and rent a car for the last 90 miles from the
airport. Whatever works for you works for us! Pinckneyville airport is
right on Illinois 127 just six miles south of the town of Pinckneyville.
Route 127 is exit 50 off of I-64. The airport is about 30 miles south of
I-64.

Please send an email to Mary at so that she can get some
idea how many steaks to buy for Saturday night dinner! It makes it a lot
easier when we have some idea of how many people to plan for meals.

Highflyer

March 10th 08, 03:10 AM

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:36:39 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> I have a business associate that bought a "pro-built" RV7. While he was
>>> flying home X-C the plane lost power and he safely landed in a field. He
>>> got the farmer who owned the land to tow him over beside the barn and
>>> then found and A&P to come out and see if he could fix the problem.
>>>
>>> The logs showed the plane had flown the 40 hours to get out of phase 1
>>> testing. That A&P and another that looked at it later both felt after
>>> looking at the plane that there was no way this plane had been flown
>>> more than five or six hours.
>>>
>>> When the buyer looked further at the log book entries he realized that
>>> the that a date had been changed and that there was only, originally 3
>>> days between the beginning and the end of the phase 1 testing.
>>>
>>> He got his money back in the deal after his lawyer made it very clear
>>> that there would either be a wire in the buyers account that day or a
>>> call would be made to the FAA.
>>
>> Perhaps a prudent purchaser would consider it a good idea to have an
>> A&P look at the aircraft and logs BEFOFE the purchase.
>>
>
> The problem that developed and caused the engine failure may or may not
> have been found by A&P. The log book entry would probably not have been
> noticed in a hanger.
>
> The point is though was that this was purchased from an A&P that was
> building under the Exp-HB rules buy a buyer that thought that meant he was
> getting a well constructed aircraft that had been properly built and
> tested.

I think there is a saying about when two fools meet ...

Highflyer

Highflyer

March 10th 08, 03:12 AM

>
> It would be very interesting for someone to be charged with operating an
> illegally built aircraft. How would this be challenged in the courts?

It has happened. They merely pull the licenses of both the airplane and the
pilot. :-)

Highflyer

Highflyer

March 10th 08, 03:15 AM

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> It would be very interesting for someone to be charged with operating an
>>> illegally built aircraft. How would this be
>>> challenged in the courts?
>>
>> I don't think they'd be charged with operating an illegally-built
>> aircraft, but
>> if they applied for the Repairman Certificate, they could be charged with
>> perjury.
>>
>> In any case, the FAA could just cancel the plane's airworthiness
>> certificate,
>> and the person who bought it from the hired gun would be out the
>> ~$50K-$250K he
>> paid for it.
>>
>> Ron Wanttaja
>
> Just because the FAA cancels the airworthiness certificate doesn't make
> the aircraft any more or less 'airworthy'.
>
> Have you seen the justification presented to re-register aircraft every 3
> years? Looks like the FAA can't enforce current regulations. So they write
> more?
>
> I seem to remember it costs something like 10 million to certify a 'car'
> to run on roads in the US of A. The cost to certify an aircraft is insane.
> There needs to be a middle ground where a sound safe design can be
> produced (built) without the muda and hindrances of our govment.

The call it "Light Sport" and the certification is done by the manufacturer
to standards agreed upon by the industry and accepted and recorded by the
ASTM.

Unfortunately, it does not guarantee a "sound safe design" will be produced.
However, a "sound safe design" MAY be produced by the process.

Highflyer

PS: its flyin time
2008 Pinckneyville Rec Aviation Flyin

The annual flyin time is coming around again! I finally got to where I
could find things in the hangar again, which is a sure indication that it is
time to start flyin preparations!

The local motels will be filling up fast again so you may want to get your
reservations in as soon as you can if you want a close motel room.

WHEN: May 16, 17, and 18 this year. Once again, it is the full weekend
prior to the Memorial Day official weekend. This has become the traditional
historical date for the flyin. It allows folks to plan well ahead to this
incredible trek. For many it becomes the cross country trip that they talk
about to everyone that will hold still long enough to listen.

WHERE: Pinckneyville DuQuoin Airport, Pinckneyville, Illinois. PJY is the
airport identifier. Put K in front if you have a fussy GPS. We are about
80 miles southeast of the Arch in St. Louis. There is a 4001 foot ( have to
be over 4000 feet for jets! ) north-south runway ( 18L – 36R ) with an 1800
foot grass runway parallel to the northern half.
( 18R – 36L ) . There is no taxiway. This an access taxiway perpendicular
to the runways. We do have instrument approachs again, but they are GPS
approachs only.

WHAT: The annual t here day get together of the diehards on the
rec.aviation newsgroups. Buddy rides all day and hangar flying all night.
Other entertainment as happens. Beer, soda, and good food. The PJY
barbeque is world renowned, as are the uniquely HOT Italian sausages served
on Thursday night. The Red Lady should be flying this year.

WHO: Pilots, about to be Pilots, wannabe Pilots, and anybody else who is
willing to put up with a bunch of wild eyed folks who talk about airplanes
and flying all day and all night.

COST: This is not one of those “break the bank” flyins. Highflyer and Mary
try to keep the costs in line so that we can have a good time without being
rich. We do that because a lot of people who come to the flyin own
airplanes. We all know that people who own an airplane are not rich
anymore! We try to collect $25 from everyone to defray the cost of the
beverages and the groceries. We do breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day.
Usually we have baby back ribs, steak, and chicken on Saturday night.
Friday night we have something good. No one goes hungry. We do have
something for vegetarians.

ACCOMODATIONS: Pitch a tent next to your airplane if you like. There is no
charge for camping on the field. We have a couple of bathrooms, but no
showers. Generally, if someone really would like to shower one of the folks
in a motel can help you out. We do have a garden hose. There are places
you can park a camper or motorhome near the action. If you are really nice,
we can even run you out an extension cord for an electrical hookup. No
sewer hookups though.

If you want a motel there are several in the area now. The preferred flyin
motel is the Mainstreet Inn, in Pinckneyville. The lady who runs it always
puts up with our group graciously. One year she even shortsheeted every bed
in the place, for a small bribe!
Her phone number is 618-357-2128. The rates are quite reasonable.

A little fancier is the local Oxbow Bed and Breakfast. This is between the
airport and town, right on the edge of town. A number of our folks stay
there every year they come and speak very highly of the establishment.
Their phone number is 618-357-9839.

We always manage to arrange some kind of transportation to and from both of
these places. If they are full there are other motels in the area and
transportation can usually be managed with no particular problems.

HOW: Flying to PJY is the primo way to arrive. If that doesn’t work many
fly commercial to St. Louis and rent a car for the last 90 miles from the
airport. Whatever works for you works for us! Pinckneyville airport is
right on Illinois 127 just six miles south of the town of Pinckneyville.
Route 127 is exit 50 off of I-64. The airport is about 30 miles south of
I-64.

Please send an email to Mary at so that she can get some
idea how many steaks to buy for Saturday night dinner! It makes it a lot
easier when we have some idea of how many people to plan for meals.

Highflyer

March 10th 08, 03:28 AM

> I guess the real question is why does the FAA feel it's necessary for
> a homebuilder to have done 51% of the work? Is it to protect him from
> himself, or to protect the public from him, or are there other
> reasons? What of the prototypes built by Lockheed or Boeing; 51% of
> them aren't constructed by a single individual.
>
> It seems that there is some fundamental assumption that I am
> overlooking, because the current FAA 51% mandate seems arbitrary and
> unfounded to me.

All aircraft are licensed under one of a limited set of rules before being
allowed to enter our airspace. The only exception to this is a class of
flying machines, called "ultralights" that fall under part 103. These
aircraft are exempted from some of the oversight because they are so
lightweight that they do not present a serious danger to people who are not
committing the unnatural act of flight in one of the contraptions.

All larger and heavier aircraft can endanger people on the ground who have a
right to be protected from fools falling out of the sky into their homes.
Theoretically, anyway.

The 51% rule has applied since the EAA was first founded back in 1953.
Interestingly, building either wings or a fuselage is considered 51% of the
aircraft? The idea was to allow the builder to utilize scrounged aircraft
parts, and to use standard aircraft engines and propellors.

Why is it reasonable? Simple. To license an airplane as Experimental -
Amateur built the amateur in question must build a substantial portion of
the aircraft. Otherwise it is NOT "amateur built" and must be licensed in
some other category, such as Experimental - Exhibition, or Standard Type
Certified or some such.

How can it possibly be "unconstitutional" to restrict aircraft licensed as
"amateur built" to only aircraft that were built by amateurs. By definition
"Professionally Built" does NOT fit into this license category and should be
licensed in one of the other categories. And can be under the existing
rules. All that it requires is compliance with the appropriate regulations
to ensure safe operation and acceptable construction standards.

Highflyer

Highflyer

March 10th 08, 03:36 AM

>>the 51% rule only applies to amateur-built aircraft.
>>
>
> Why? That seems a little arbitrary to me. If one group is enjoined
> from employing others to construct an aircraft, why should another
> group be permitted to do the same thing with impunity?
>
>

Any individual or group can construct an aircraft. No one has been told
they cannot construct an aircraft. The only thing they are being told is
that it is illegal to attempt to license an aircraft in the official
specific license category of "Experimental - Amateur Built" that wan NOT in
fact, built by an amateur. I do not have a problem with that. Any
aircraft not built by an amateur can indeed be licensed, but only in the
appropriate category. If they proceed to license the aircraft correctly
there is no problem and no objection. The only problem is with people who
make known false official statements to allow an outcome they deem
favorable, if illegal.

Rather like saying "I didn't make enough money last year to file income tax.
All those W-2's with my name on them are really not mine or are mistaken and
should be ignored."

Highflyer

Highflyer

March 10th 08, 03:39 AM

It may be reasonable, but no one has
> provided a logical rational for it yet in this discussion.
>
>

If you believe that, you cannot read. By the way, rational is used
incorrectly in that sentence. It is used as "rationale" instead of it own
meaning. :-)

Highflyer

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 10th 08, 01:39 PM

Larry Dighera wrote: One of his stupidest post ever. And that's saying
something.

Larry I have no problem with Kit Built at all. I'm building one myself.

As far as where the US Government gets it's authority to regulate our
airspace I would assume it is from the same place where it gets it
authority to create the Department of Transportation which is probably
the Interstate Commerce clause of the constitution. I really don't have
either the time or desire to look it up.

But just so you know you probably won't find it worded very clearly. The
reason for that is because there was little war in the mid 1800s that
changed the face of what the federal government can an can't do. If you
don't like well either build a time machine and go sign up to fight for
the South.

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 10th 08, 01:43 PM

Blueskies wrote:
>
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Acepilot > wrote:
>>
>>> What is a "Pro Built"? I would take it to mean that an experimental
>>> "kit" was built by somebody like Cessna or Piper, etc. As an amateur
>>> builder, am I a "novice" when I complete it? Will I turn pro after I
>>> finish a second one? I'd tend to say that an airplane built by Joe
>>> Blow for somebody else is still amateur built, but the owner who
>>> applies for the repairman certificate should not be able to get it if
>>> they themselves did not build 51%.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>
>> "pro built" in my message means that you pay someone to build it.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>
> Why should this not be allowed? This is a free country, maybe...

It is allowed. They jet have to get it certified.

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 10th 08, 01:44 PM

cavelamb himself wrote:

>
> Wouldn't you love to see the RV-6 as a certified airplane!

Sure. It would cost $300K though.

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 10th 08, 01:50 PM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:

> Cessna goes to China to get the Skyscraper at a reasonable price. Yet we
> have USA built planes off better value that are restricted from my purchase
> because I can't flip fiberglass?

Here's the problem. You can buy a completely built EXP-HB completely
legally. You just can't buy it from someone that didn't build it for
"Recreation and Education."

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 10th 08, 01:51 PM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:45:03 GMT, wrote:
>
>> In rec.aviation.piloting WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>>
>>> Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane.
>> Sure you can.
>>
>> See any airplanes for sale web site.
>>
>> You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original builder.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them?

The ability to get the repairman's certificate. Which basically makes
you an IA for that particular aircraft.

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 10th 08, 01:52 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:45:03 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>> In rec.aviation.piloting WJRFlyBoy >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yet I can't buy a completely built kit/plans plane.
>>> Sure you can.
>>>
>>> See any airplanes for sale web site.
>>>
>>> You just can't buy one and have the same privilges as the original
>>> builder.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Pennino
>> Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them?
>
> the origianl builder is the manufacturer. He can effect any maintenance
> or repeair on the airplane he likes...You buy it , you can't.
>

That's not exactly right Bertie. You can work on the plane, anyone can,
what you can't do is sign off the annual inspection.

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 10th 08, 02:16 PM

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Mar 8, 5:36 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>
>> He got his money back in the deal after his lawyer made it very clear
>> that there would either be a wire in the buyers account that day or a
>> call would be made to the FAA.- Hide quoted text -
>>
> Isn't that blackmail?
>
> Cheers

Yes, it is. But then so is your average plea bargain.

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 10th 08, 05:32 PM

Jim Logajan wrote:
> The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to
> build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one of
> the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a warning and a
> call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning on page 3 of this
> document:
>
> http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2008/1-2008-RVator.pdf

Well, Jim,

Looks like your "call to arms" call backfired on ya...

Jim Logajan

March 10th 08, 06:03 PM

cavelamb himself > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people
>> to build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of
>> one of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a
>> warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning
>> on page 3 of this document:
>>
>> http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2008/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>
>
> Well, Jim,
>
> Looks like your "call to arms" call backfired on ya...

_My_ call to arms? Huh??

If Richard VanGrunsven's call to arms backfired, it may be because people
no longer actually read what is written. They can't even get attributions
correct. So if they can't figure out who originated a call to arms, I guess
it is not surprising they get a clean miss on the central thesis.

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 10th 08, 06:22 PM

Jim Logajan wrote:

> cavelamb himself > wrote:
>
>>Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>>>The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people
>>>to build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of
>>>one of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a
>>>warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning
>>>on page 3 of this document:
>>>
>>>http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2008/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>>
>>
>>Well, Jim,
>>
>>Looks like your "call to arms" call backfired on ya...
>
>
> _My_ call to arms? Huh??
>
> If Richard VanGrunsven's call to arms backfired, it may be because people
> no longer actually read what is written. They can't even get attributions
> correct. So if they can't figure out who originated a call to arms, I guess
> it is not surprising they get a clean miss on the central thesis.

YOU brought it in here...

But I guess WE are all wrong - for disagreeing?

Pffft...

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 10th 08, 07:35 PM

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in news:13taf5pnhte4u44
@news.supernews.com:
>>> Ok, what rights do I lose and why do I lose them?
>>
>> the origianl builder is the manufacturer. He can effect any maintenance
>> or repeair on the airplane he likes...You buy it , you can't.
>>
>
> That's not exactly right Bertie. You can work on the plane, anyone can,
> what you can't do is sign off the annual inspection.
>

OK, my bad.

Bertie

Jim Logajan

March 10th 08, 09:52 PM

cavelamb himself > wrote:
> YOU brought it in here...

I didn't realize it works that way. Boy is R.V. going to ****ed when he
learns I inadvertently assumed ownership to his call to arms.

You have a better grasp of these things than I - perhaps you would be kind
enough to tell me how I might correct the situation?

> But I guess WE are all wrong - for disagreeing?

Excellent point. You and everyone else who posted followups are not all
wrong.

> Pffft...

Not only can't I argue with that logic, the front of my shirt is full of
spittle.

Thanks for setting me straight. I know now, thanks to you and several other
posters, that you have keener insight into what changes the FAA may be
planning to the rules than this VanGrunsven fellow does.

Bob Kuykendall

March 10th 08, 11:13 PM

I've found that it's not very effective to judge what the homebuilder
population at large thinks by what the relatively small population of
RAH posters writes.

There are many lurkers on this newsgroup who never post, and also many
who don't ever tune into RAH. And there are no doubt no few who maybe
surveyed it once during a hystrionical episode or em-aye-five storm
and decided the signal/noise ratio was below their threshold, so they
never came back.

My interest in this issue is two-fold: Now I know to prepare for a sea-
change on the interpretation of "major portion" and its reflection on
form 8000-38. And also, now I know what was so important about the EAA
telecon that Dick had to attend to while we were visiting Vans that
Monday morning:

http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24/update_4_march_08.htm

Thanks, Bob K.

Drew Dalgleish

March 11th 08, 03:42 AM

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 16:55:32 -0800, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
> wrote:

>
>Rich: Recently a friend of mine put together an original two seat helicopter
>that used a modified Lycoming engine. Note when the modification was done,
>the Lycoming tag is supposed to be removed as it is no longer considered a
>Lycoming engine. Makes sense to me, but not to the FAA inspectors. As I
>understand it was FAA employees from the local FSDO. They insisted that
>the builder comply with Lycoming ADs before they would issue the
>airworthiness. Too often the job of inspecting a homebuilt is really more
>work than the "Busy" bureacrat wants to do so the paper work gets all the
>attention. On my ship the DAR wanted a decal showing which was was open and
>close on the throttle. Number one that decal is by necessity in a place
>that you can't see when in operation. Number two if you need a decal to
>inform you of the proper direction of rotation of a helicopter throttle you
>surely should not be in there to start with. With all that said I did see
>and talk to a DAR who had his feet well on the ground and kept his critique
>useful and addressed reasonable items.
>I'm not sure what an airworthiness certificate in an aircraft means other
>than FAA has some paper work on file that acknowledges this aircraft's
>existence.
>
>Stu
>
>

Burecrats love plackards. I had to install one for up and down on my
water rudders

John Ousterhout[_2_]

March 11th 08, 06:58 PM

Updated Pinckneyville Fly-In FAQ here:
http://www.ousterhout.net/pjy-faq.html

- John (thank dog I'm not in Iowa any more) Ousterhout -

Highflyer wrote:

> PS: its flyin time ...
> 2008 Pinckneyville Rec Aviation Flyin
>
> The annual flyin time is coming around again! I finally got to where I
> could find things in the hangar again, which is a sure indication that it is
> time to start flyin preparations!
>
> The local motels will be filling up fast again so you may want to get your
> reservations in as soon as you can if you want a close motel room.
>
> WHEN: May 16, 17, and 18 this year. Once again, it is the full weekend
> prior to the Memorial Day official weekend. This has become the traditional
> historical date for the flyin. It allows folks to plan well ahead to this
> incredible trek. For many it becomes the cross country trip that they talk
> about to everyone that will hold still long enough to listen.
>
> WHERE: Pinckneyville DuQuoin Airport, Pinckneyville, Illinois. PJY is the
> airport identifier. Put K in front if you have a fussy GPS. We are about
> 80 miles southeast of the Arch in St. Louis. There is a 4001 foot ( have to
> be over 4000 feet for jets! ) north-south runway ( 18L – 36R ) with an 1800
> foot grass runway parallel to the northern half.
> ( 18R – 36L ) . There is no taxiway. This an access taxiway perpendicular
> to the runways. We do have instrument approachs again, but they are GPS
> approachs only.
>
> WHAT: The annual t here day get together of the diehards on the
> rec.aviation newsgroups. Buddy rides all day and hangar flying all night.
> Other entertainment as happens. Beer, soda, and good food. The PJY
> barbeque is world renowned, as are the uniquely HOT Italian sausages served
> on Thursday night. The Red Lady should be flying this year.
>
> WHO: Pilots, about to be Pilots, wannabe Pilots, and anybody else who is
> willing to put up with a bunch of wild eyed folks who talk about airplanes
> and flying all day and all night.
>
> COST: This is not one of those “break the bank” flyins. Highflyer and Mary
> try to keep the costs in line so that we can have a good time without being
> rich. We do that because a lot of people who come to the flyin own
> airplanes. We all know that people who own an airplane are not rich
> anymore! We try to collect $25 from everyone to defray the cost of the
> beverages and the groceries. We do breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day.
> Usually we have baby back ribs, steak, and chicken on Saturday night.
> Friday night we have something good. No one goes hungry. We do have
> something for vegetarians.
>
> ACCOMODATIONS: Pitch a tent next to your airplane if you like. There is no
> charge for camping on the field. We have a couple of bathrooms, but no
> showers. Generally, if someone really would like to shower one of the folks
> in a motel can help you out. We do have a garden hose. There are places
> you can park a camper or motorhome near the action. If you are really nice,
> we can even run you out an extension cord for an electrical hookup. No
> sewer hookups though.
>
> If you want a motel there are several in the area now. The preferred flyin
> motel is the Mainstreet Inn, in Pinckneyville. The lady who runs it always
> puts up with our group graciously. One year she even shortsheeted every bed
> in the place, for a small bribe!
> Her phone number is 618-357-2128. The rates are quite reasonable.
>
> A little fancier is the local Oxbow Bed and Breakfast. This is between the
> airport and town, right on the edge of town. A number of our folks stay
> there every year they come and speak very highly of the establishment.
> Their phone number is 618-357-9839.
>
> We always manage to arrange some kind of transportation to and from both of
> these places. If they are full there are other motels in the area and
> transportation can usually be managed with no particular problems.
>
> HOW: Flying to PJY is the primo way to arrive. If that doesn’t work many
> fly commercial to St. Louis and rent a car for the last 90 miles from the
> airport. Whatever works for you works for us! Pinckneyville airport is
> right on Illinois 127 just six miles south of the town of Pinckneyville.
> Route 127 is exit 50 off of I-64. The airport is about 30 miles south of
> I-64.
>
> Please send an email to Mary at so that she can get some
> idea how many steaks to buy for Saturday night dinner! It makes it a lot
> easier when we have some idea of how many people to plan for meals.
>
>

Larry Dighera

March 13th 08, 05:02 PM

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:36:03 -0500, "Highflyer" > wrote:

>
>>>the 51% rule only applies to amateur-built aircraft.
>>>
>>
>> Why? That seems a little arbitrary to me. If one group is enjoined
>> from employing others to construct an aircraft, why should another
>> group be permitted to do the same thing with impunity?
>>
>
>Any individual or group can construct an aircraft. No one has been told
>they cannot construct an aircraft.

Implicit in my question was the intent to have the aircraft licensed.

>The only thing they are being told is
>that it is illegal to attempt to license an aircraft in the official
>specific license category of "Experimental - Amateur Built" that wan [sic]
>NOT in fact, built by an amateur. I do not have a problem with that.

My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and other experimentals?

>Any aircraft not built by an amateur can indeed be licensed, but only in the
>appropriate category. If they proceed to license the aircraft correctly
>there is no problem and no objection. The only problem is with people who
>make known false official statements to allow an outcome they deem
>favorable, if illegal.

I'm not condoning the making of false statements.

I'm questioning the appropriateness of the FAA's scrutinizing the
_intent_ of the builder(s). It seems to me that the FAA requirement
for the "Experimental - Amateur Built" builder to be motivated by
educational or recreational intent places the FAA in the role of
evaluating the mental state of the builder, not the airworthiness of
the aircraft.

I realize that those intents are ostensibility to prevent the
wholesale construction of uncertified aircraft by amateurs with the
intent to sell them to the public, but the rule seems flawed due to
the role of psychologist in which it necessarily places the FAA. The
FAA's role should be solely to determine the suitability of a given
aircraft to operate in the NAS with appropriate restrictions as may be
necessary, IMO, not to examine the motivation of the builder(s).

What are the pertinent licensing differences between "Experimental -
Amateur Built" and those of the appropriate experimental type of say
SpaceshipOne built by Scaled Composites commissioned by Branson?

What is your opinion of a group composed of an experienced builder and
a potential operator of the fruit of their labor collaborating on the
construction of an aircraft licensed as "Experimental - Amateur
Built?" Wouldn't that be a simple method of circumventing the
"Experimental - Amateur Built?" rubric?

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 13th 08, 05:10 PM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:36:03 -0500, "Highflyer" > wrote:
>
>>
>>>>the 51% rule only applies to amateur-built aircraft.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why? That seems a little arbitrary to me. If one group is enjoined
>>> from employing others to construct an aircraft, why should another
>>> group be permitted to do the same thing with impunity?
>>>
>>
>>Any individual or group can construct an aircraft. No one has been
>>told they cannot construct an aircraft.
>
> Implicit in my question was the intent to have the aircraft licensed.
>
>>The only thing they are being told is
>>that it is illegal to attempt to license an aircraft in the official
>>specific license category of "Experimental - Amateur Built" that wan
>>[sic] NOT in fact, built by an amateur. I do not have a problem with
>>that.
>
> My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
> separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
> Amateur Built" and other experimentals?
>
>>Any aircraft not built by an amateur can indeed be licensed, but only
>>in the appropriate category. If they proceed to license the aircraft
>>correctly there is no problem and no objection. The only problem is
>>with people who make known false official statements to allow an
>>outcome they deem favorable, if illegal.
>
> I'm not condoning the making of false statements.

No, you just make them yourself and cut out the middle man.
>
> I'm questioning the appropriateness of the FAA's scrutinizing the
> _intent_ of the builder(s). It seems to me that the FAA requirement
> for the "Experimental - Amateur Built" builder to be motivated by
> educational or recreational intent places the FAA in the role of
> evaluating the mental state of the builder, not the airworthiness of
> the aircraft.
>
> I realize that those intents are ostensibility to prevent the
> wholesale construction of uncertified aircraft by amateurs with the
> intent to sell them to the public, but the rule seems flawed due to
> the role of psychologist in which it necessarily places the FAA. The
> FAA's role should be solely to determine the suitability of a given
> aircraft to operate in the NAS with appropriate restrictions as may be
> necessary, IMO, not to examine the motivation of the builder(s).
>
> What are the pertinent licensing differences between "Experimental -
> Amateur Built" and those of the appropriate experimental type of say
> SpaceshipOne built by Scaled Composites commissioned by Branson?

It wasn't commisoned by branson, fjukkwit.

He merely jumped in when he saw it nearing the finish line.
>
> What is your opinion of a group composed of an experienced builder and
> a potential operator of the fruit of their labor collaborating on the
> construction of an aircraft licensed as "Experimental - Amateur
> Built?" Wouldn't that be a simple method of circumventing the
> "Experimental - Amateur Built?" rubric?
>

Twit.

Bertie

Jim Logajan

March 13th 08, 06:09 PM

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
> separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
> Amateur Built" and other experimentals?

The answer to that requires going through some history. Too much for me to
recount here - even if I knew it all (and I don't). Amateur builders today
appear to have a lot to thank for the tireless work of people like the
"Beaverton Outlaws" of Oregon. Quoting from Ron Wanttaja's book "Kit
Airplane Construction": "By World War II, homebuilt aircraft had been
banned in every state of the Union. Except Oregon."

Here's a very nice article titled "The Resistance" about how some of the
Oregonian "rebels" were critical in getting that category into the
regulations:

http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2007/april-may/oregon_outlaws.php

> What are the pertinent licensing differences between "Experimental -
> Amateur Built" and those of the appropriate experimental type of say
> SpaceshipOne built by Scaled Composites commissioned by Branson?

If the experimental is created in furtherance of a business it is supposed
to be registered under a different experimental category. It may also have
different operating limitations. Scaled Composites almost certainly doesn't
attempt to register its aircraft under the amateur built category.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to
the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is
eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the
consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
---- John Philpot Curran
From http://www.bartleby.com/73/1054.html

Highflyer

March 13th 08, 08:28 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
> separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
> Amateur Built" and other experimentals?
>
The FAA does NOT feel it is necessary. It took many years to get them to
allow a homemade airplane to fly in US airspace at all. The compromise we
got was a special category in Experimental for amateur built airplanes. We
also got much better operational limitations that any of the other
experimental categories. We are very happy that we have a special category.
We would much rather not have this rare privelege abused by a bunch of
greedy shortsighted idiots lining their pockets. Any privelege, when
abused, is vulnerable to loss. That is the way of the world.

There are many avenues in the regulations for people to build and sell
airplanes. They are not i mpossible. Look at Cirrus. However, t hey do
require some effort. People who want to make a buck building airplanes, but
do not want to put in the time and effort to ensure that they meet
appropriate standards for doing so really should not be allowed to abuse the
privelege granted to homebuilders.

Highflyer
EAA member for 50 years.

Ron Wanttaja

March 14th 08, 01:25 AM

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:02:39 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote:

> My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
> separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
> Amateur Built" and other experimentals?

There's really no such thing as just an "Experimental" airplane. Anyone who
wants an Experimental certificate has to justify why their plane needs one, and
there are only seven allowable reasons. "Operating an Amateur-Built Aircraft"
is just one of them.

Ron Wanttaja

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 14th 08, 03:08 PM

"Highflyer" > wrote in :

>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
>> separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
>> Amateur Built" and other experimentals?
>>
> The FAA does NOT feel it is necessary. It took many years to get them
> to allow a homemade airplane to fly in US airspace at all. The
> compromise we got was a special category in Experimental for amateur
> built airplanes. We also got much better operational limitations that
> any of the other experimental categories. We are very happy that we
> have a special category. We would much rather not have this rare
> privelege abused by a bunch of greedy shortsighted idiots lining their
> pockets. Any privelege, when abused, is vulnerable to loss. That is
> the way of the world.
>
> There are many avenues in the regulations for people to build and sell
> airplanes. They are not i mpossible. Look at Cirrus. However, t hey
> do require some effort. People who want to make a buck building
> airplanes, but do not want to put in the time and effort to ensure
> that they meet appropriate standards for doing so really should not be
> allowed to abuse the privelege granted to homebuilders.
>
> Highflyer
> EAA member for 50 years.
>

hear hear

Bertie
EAA member for 37 years.

>
>

William Hung[_2_]

March 15th 08, 07:14 PM

On Mar 8, 6:21*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> William Hung > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 10:07*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> >> "William Hung" > wrote I agree with you to a
> >> certain point. *I think that there arepeople out
> >> there who are better off having 'one made for them' than to have them
> >> make it themselves. *I know people will say, 'so let them get a
> >> certified one!' *Well... just well...
>
> >> They still have the freedom to go out and buy an experimental that
> >> was constructed by someone else, under the rights allowed the person
> >> that buil
> > t
> >> it, as educational/recreational.
>
> >> Until the regulations are change to allow people to build airplanes
> >> for hire, and not have to be certified, that is the only way to go,
> >> except the
>
> >> limitations of LSA.
>
> >> You don't like a reg, get it changed. *You don't have the right to
> >> screw
> > *it
> >> up for me, when I decide to build-legally, under the current amateur
> >> built
>
> >> provisions.
> >> --
> >> Jim in NC
>
> > It's not that I don't like the reg or wanting them changed, I just
> > want to be able to get help on my project if I get to a point where I
> > think, 'Hey maybe I'm not so confident about doing this part myself'.
> > I am still thinking about building my own plane, but that time hasn't
> > yet arrived.
>
> That's no problem. That's sinificantly different from writing a check
> and having someone build one for you. The airplanes in that class
> usually are available with center sections built and so on, so there;s
> no excuse to take it further.
>
>
>
> > I can see stol's point of view that there are people out there with
> > more money than brains. *People who pay pros to do their work an
> > claiming credit for it. *Those people are slimeballs, I agree.
>
> And the more salient point is there are slimeballs out there who will
> sell you an airplane that is a deathtrap..

The law is becoming less forgiven of slimeballs.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4438090a10.html

Wil

>
> Time for Juan Jiminez to enter.....
>
> Bertue- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 15th 08, 07:51 PM

William Hung > wrote in
:

> On Mar 8, 6:21*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> William Hung > wrote
>> innews:474be9f8-1906-4bb9-84ec-5d76
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 7, 10:07*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> >> "William Hung" > wrote I agree with you to a
>> >> certain point. *I think that there arepeople out
>> >> there who are better off having 'one made for them' than to have
>> >> them make it themselves. *I know people will say, 'so let them get
>> >> a certified one!' *Well... just well...
>>
>> >> They still have the freedom to go out and buy an experimental that
>> >> was constructed by someone else, under the rights allowed the
>> >> person that buil
>> > t
>> >> it, as educational/recreational.
>>
>> >> Until the regulations are change to allow people to build
>> >> airplanes for hire, and not have to be certified, that is the only
>> >> way to go, except the
>>
>> >> limitations of LSA.
>>
>> >> You don't like a reg, get it changed. *You don't have the right to
>> >> screw
>> > *it
>> >> up for me, when I decide to build-legally, under the current
>> >> amateur built
>>
>> >> provisions.
>> >> --
>> >> Jim in NC
>>
>> > It's not that I don't like the reg or wanting them changed, I just
>> > want to be able to get help on my project if I get to a point where
>> > I think, 'Hey maybe I'm not so confident about doing this part
>> > myself'. I am still thinking about building my own plane, but that
>> > time hasn't yet arrived.
>>
>> That's no problem. That's sinificantly different from writing a check
>> and having someone build one for you. The airplanes in that class
>> usually are available with center sections built and so on, so
>> there;s no excuse to take it further.
>>
>>
>>
>> > I can see stol's point of view that there are people out there with
>> > more money than brains. *People who pay pros to do their work an
>> > claiming credit for it. *Those people are slimeballs, I agree.
>>
>> And the more salient point is there are slimeballs out there who will
>> sell you an airplane that is a deathtrap..
>
> The law is becoming less forgiven of slimeballs.
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4438090a10.html
>

Good!

Bertie

William Hung[_2_]

March 15th 08, 08:09 PM

On Mar 15, 3:14*pm, William Hung > wrote:
> On Mar 8, 6:21*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > William Hung > wrote :
>
> > > On Mar 7, 10:07*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> > >> "William Hung" > wrote I agree with you to a
> > >> certain point. *I think that there arepeople out
> > >> there who are better off having 'one made for them' than to have them
> > >> make it themselves. *I know people will say, 'so let them get a
> > >> certified one!' *Well... just well...
>
> > >> They still have the freedom to go out and buy an experimental that
> > >> was constructed by someone else, under the rights allowed the person
> > >> that buil
> > > t
> > >> it, as educational/recreational.
>
> > >> Until the regulations are change to allow people to build airplanes
> > >> for hire, and not have to be certified, that is the only way to go,
> > >> except the
>
> > >> limitations of LSA.
>
> > >> You don't like a reg, get it changed. *You don't have the right to
> > >> screw
> > > *it
> > >> up for me, when I decide to build-legally, under the current amateur
> > >> built
>
> > >> provisions.
> > >> --
> > >> Jim in NC
>
> > > It's not that I don't like the reg or wanting them changed, I just
> > > want to be able to get help on my project if I get to a point where I
> > > think, 'Hey maybe I'm not so confident about doing this part myself'.
> > > I am still thinking about building my own plane, but that time hasn't
> > > yet arrived.
>
> > That's no problem. That's sinificantly different from writing a check
> > and having someone build one for you. The airplanes in that class
> > usually are available with center sections built and so on, so there;s
> > no excuse to take it further.
>
> > > I can see stol's point of view that there are people out there with
> > > more money than brains. *People who pay pros to do their work an
> > > claiming credit for it. *Those people are slimeballs, I agree.
>
> > And the more salient point is there are slimeballs out there who will
> > sell you an airplane that is a deathtrap..
>
> The law is becoming less forgiven of slimeballs.http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4438090a10.html
>
> Wil
>
>
>
>
>
> > Time for Juan Jiminez to enter.....
>
> > Bertue- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The law is becoming less forgiv(ING) of slimeballs.http://
www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4438090a10.html

Wil

Larry Dighera

March 16th 08, 02:20 AM

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:28:42 -0500, "Highflyer" > wrote:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
>> separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
>> Amateur Built" and other experimentals?
>>
>The FAA does NOT feel it is necessary.

If it's unnecessary, why do they have other experimental types?

>It took many years to get them to allow a homemade airplane to fly in US
>airspace at all.

What year was that?

>The compromise we got was a special category in Experimental for
>amateur built airplanes. We also got much better operational
>limitations that [sic] any of the other experimental categories.
>We are very happy that we have a special category.

That sounds appropriate. But you make it sound like the FAA (or CAA
at the time?) had the legal right to prevent amateur built aircraft
from operating in the NAS. While the FAA surely possessed the power,
I submit, that such a "right" probably wouldn't stand up to a legal
challenge, and that is probably why the FAA made the concession to
amateur constructed experimental aircraft. But you are far more
familiar with topic than I.

>We would much rather not have this rare privelege abused by a bunch of
>greedy shortsighted idiots lining their pockets. Any privelege, when
>abused, is vulnerable to loss. That is the way of the world.

I'm not convinced that flying an airplane you built is not a right,
providing it meets the standards of others that have been permitted to
fly.

United State Code TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
Sec. 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace.

Perhaps the time has come to rethink the whole issue.

What if the FAA's intent to modify the current amateur built
experimental regulations were to result, not in further restrictions
and prohibitions, but in accommodating those who desire to commission
the construction of aircraft that haven't been submitted to type
certification standards (something like the LSAs), but do meet the
airworthiness standards of other experimental aircraft that have been
licensed by the FAA to operate in the NAS? Would that be a bad thing?
Why?

>
>There are many avenues in the regulations for people to build and sell
>airplanes. They are not i mpossible. Look at Cirrus. However, t hey do
>require some effort.

Are you referring to Cirrus certifying an amateur build experimental
aircraft in the Normal category?

>People who want to make a buck building airplanes, but
>do not want to put in the time and effort to ensure that they meet
>appropriate standards for doing so really should not be allowed to abuse the
>privelege granted to homebuilders.

There are a few "loaded' concepts in that assertion, IMO.

First, the aircraft to which you refer probably do meet the standards
of amateur built experimental aircraft or the standards that the FAA
has established for other experimental aircraft.

Second, construction of an aircraft that meets those standards can
hardly be construed as "abuse" in my opinion.

Third, is the notion that building and flying an amateur built
aircraft that complies with FAA standards is a "privilege" not a
right.

It seems the FAA has attempted to prevent the wholesale construction
of experimental aircraft by judging the intent (or mental state and
motivation) of the builder, rather than judging the safety of the
aircraft in question, as would seem considerably more appropriate for
a governmental agency, IMO. Perhaps it's time for that sort of
governmental "thought policing" to be reexamined.

>
>Highflyer
>EAA member for 50 years.
>

Thanks for the information you have provided, John. I'm not trying to
upset anyone; I'm just thinking outside the box in the hope such
objective analysis by someone who has hasn't been an EAA member ever,
let alone fifty years, will provide another way to view the issue.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 16th 08, 02:21 AM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:28:42 -0500, "Highflyer" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> My point is, why is does the FAA feel it is necessary to provide
>>> separate experimental licensing criteria between "Experimental -
>>> Amateur Built" and other experimentals?
>>>
>>The FAA does NOT feel it is necessary.
>
> If it's unnecessary, why do they have other experimental types?
>
>>It took many years to get them to allow a homemade airplane to fly in
>>US airspace at all.
>
> What year was that?
>
>>The compromise we got was a special category in Experimental for
>>amateur built airplanes. We also got much better operational
>>limitations that [sic] any of the other experimental categories.
>>We are very happy that we have a special category.
>
> That sounds appropriate. But you make it sound like the FAA (or CAA
> at the time?) had the legal right to prevent amateur built aircraft
> from operating in the NAS. While the FAA surely possessed the power,
> I submit, that such a "right" probably wouldn't stand up to a legal
> challenge, and that is probably why the FAA made the concession to
> amateur constructed experimental aircraft. But you are far more
> familiar with topic than I.
>
>>We would much rather not have this rare privelege abused by a bunch of
>>greedy shortsighted idiots lining their pockets. Any privelege, when
>>abused, is vulnerable to loss. That is the way of the world.
>
> I'm not convinced that flying an airplane you built is not a right,
> providing it meets the standards of others that have been permitted to
> fly.
>
> United State Code TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
> Sec. 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
> (2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
> through the navigable airspace.
>
> Perhaps the time has come to rethink the whole issue.
>
> What if the FAA's intent to modify the current amateur built
> experimental regulations were to result, not in further restrictions
> and prohibitions, but in accommodating those who desire to commission
> the construction of aircraft that haven't been submitted to type
> certification standards (something like the LSAs), but do meet the
> airworthiness standards of other experimental aircraft that have been
> licensed by the FAA to operate in the NAS? Would that be a bad thing?
> Why?
>
>>
>>There are many avenues in the regulations for people to build and sell
>>airplanes. They are not i mpossible. Look at Cirrus. However, t hey
>>do require some effort.
>
> Are you referring to Cirrus certifying an amateur build experimental
> aircraft in the Normal category?
>
>>People who want to make a buck building airplanes, but
>>do not want to put in the time and effort to ensure that they meet
>>appropriate standards for doing so really should not be allowed to
>>abuse the privelege granted to homebuilders.
>
> There are a few "loaded' concepts in that assertion, IMO.

So write a letter to the times, k00k.
>
> First, the aircraft to which you refer probably do meet the standards
> of amateur built experimental aircraft or the standards that the FAA
> has established for other experimental aircraft.

Yeah, "probably". That;s a word you see a lot of in the FARs.

>
> Second, construction of an aircraft that meets those standards can
> hardly be construed as "abuse" in my opinion.

Your opinion doesn't matter.

Bertie

Highflyer

March 18th 08, 03:04 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:28:42 -0500, "Highflyer" > wrote:
>> I'm not convinced that flying an airplane you built is not a right,
> providing it meets the standards of others that have been permitted to
> fly.

Anyone can build an fly any airplane with no amateur built restrictions at
all if they do that. The standards are set forth in the FAR's Part 21.
Technical requirements are in FAR Part 23. These are the standards
established for building and flying aircraft in the US airspace. These
standards were established about 80 years ago to prevent people from
building and selling deathtraps to unsuspecting pilots who were not
aeronautical engineers.

> What if the FAA's intent to modify the current amateur built
> experimental regulations were to result, not in further restrictions
> and prohibitions, but in accommodating those who desire to commission
> the construction of aircraft that haven't been submitted to type
> certification standards (something like the LSAs), but do meet the
> airworthiness standards of other experimental aircraft that have been
> licensed by the FAA to operate in the NAS? Would that be a bad thing?
>

The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It greatly
simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard for
aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why
they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two
places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
rules. Not unreasonable restrictions for aircraft that do not meet the full
blown standards required for aircraft to be sold to the general public.

>
>>People who want to make a buck building airplanes, but
>>do not want to put in the time and effort to ensure that they meet
>>appropriate standards for doing so really should not be allowed to abuse
>>the
>>privelege granted to homebuilders.
>
> There are a few "loaded' concepts in that assertion, IMO.
>
> First, the aircraft to which you refer probably do meet the standards
> of amateur built experimental aircraft or the standards that the FAA
> has established for other experimental aircraft.
>
> Second, construction of an aircraft that meets those standards can
> hardly be construed as "abuse" in my opinion.
>

Clearly an uninformed opinion. All experimental aircraft do NOT meet the
same standards. The bulk of the experimental class is set up to all
aircraft manufacturers to perform reasonable flight tests of new designs
before entering the full certification procedures. That is the REASON for
an "experimental" category. For flying "experimental" aircraft prior to
certification so they can generate the data required for certification.

The FAA generously allowed two separate classes under the general
"experimental" category for special airplanes that did NOT meet the
standards for certification. In these classes the aircraft is NOT really
"experimental." They just put them there because that is where they put
aircraft that were not certified as up to the published standards.

In these two classes each aircraft is treated and inspected as a "one of a
kind" aircraft to ensure a reasonable standard of construction if not
design. Typically the field maintenance inspectors who were charged with
inspecting these aircraft were not trained to make design critiques and
evaluations. They could evaluate construction quality and technique.

These two special categories that did not require full compliance with the
published airworthiness standards for flight in the US airspace are
Experimental, Amateur Built and Experimental, Exibition. The amateur built
category allowed people who built their own airplane for educational or
recreational reasons, not for profit, to actually fly their creations
legally in the airspace without having to comply with the published
standards.

The Exibition category allows us to fly aircraft that have never been
certified by our published standards in our airspace. This is usually the
home for unusual or antique aircraft that predate the certification
standards or otherwise sidestepped them. You "hired gun" who builds an
aircraft on "commission" for someone who doesn't want to build it himself
can license an aircraft they built in this category. It does, however, have
a few more stringent operating limitations than the Amateur built category
does. The "hired guns" are falsifying information in order to avoid these
additional operational limitations.

The method for removing these operational limitations is spelled out in the
regulations. Merely comply with the standards required for certification.
I admit this is easier to say than do. That is why they established a
separate certification path and separate certification standards for LSA
aircraft.

> Third, is the notion that building and flying an amateur built
> aircraft that complies with FAA standards is a "privilege" not a
> right.
>
> It seems the FAA has attempted to prevent the wholesale construction
> of experimental aircraft by judging the intent (or mental state and
> motivation) of the builder, rather than judging the safety of the
> aircraft in question, as would seem considerably more appropriate for
> a governmental agency, IMO. Perhaps it's time for that sort of
> governmental "thought policing" to be reexamined.
>

Not at all. They merely provided a different way to judge the safety of the
aircraft in question that adhereing to the published standards in special
cases.

>
> Thanks for the information you have provided, John. I'm not trying to
> upset anyone; I'm just thinking outside the box in the hope such
> objective analysis by someone who has hasn't been an EAA member ever,
> let alone fifty years, will provide another way to view the issue.
>

You can do that. However, you are not thinking "outside the box." You are
rehashing old tired arguments that were brought up and shot down over fifty
years ago. What we have today is a hard won compromise that allows us a
tremendous degree of freedom compared to every other country in the world.
There are many people in this country that believe we have way too much
freedom to build and fly airplanes over THEIR house. It takes a continueing
effort to maintain these hard won priveleges. If we lose what we have then
the largest and fastest growing segment of General Aviation is dead. I do
not want that to happen. I have been working for fifty years to expand and
clarify these issues through the EAA and AOPA. Let's not undo years of work
and wind up with nothing.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport, PJY

Jay Maynard

March 18th 08, 04:49 AM

On 2008-03-18, Highflyer > wrote:
> The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It greatly
> simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard for
> aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why
> they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two
> places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
> rules.

Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped. That's one big
reason I wound up with a Zodiac XLi. The key is that no part of the aircraft
must have manufacturer's instructions prohibiting night or IFR operations,
and their equipment must meet the minimum standards of the rules. This
means, for example, that the aircraft must not be powered by a Rotax 912ULS
or Jabiru 3300, both of which have manufacturer's instructions limiting them
to day VFR.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Steve Hix

March 18th 08, 05:26 AM

In article >,
Jay Maynard > wrote:

> On 2008-03-18, Highflyer > wrote:
> > The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It
> > greatly
> > simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard
> > for
> > aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why
> > they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two
> > places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
> > rules.
>
> Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped.

As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above.

> That's one big
> reason I wound up with a Zodiac XLi. The key is that no part of the aircraft
> must have manufacturer's instructions prohibiting night or IFR operations,
> and their equipment must meet the minimum standards of the rules. This
> means, for example, that the aircraft must not be powered by a Rotax 912ULS
> or Jabiru 3300, both of which have manufacturer's instructions limiting them
> to day VFR.

jan olieslagers[_2_]

March 18th 08, 05:39 AM

Steve Hix schreef:
> In article >,
> Jay Maynard > wrote:
>
>> On 2008-03-18, Highflyer > wrote:
>>> The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It
>>> greatly
>>> simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard
>>> for
>>> aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why
>>> they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two
>>> places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
>>> rules.
>> Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped.
>
> As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above.

This was about plane certification, not about pilot rating.

Peter Dohm

March 18th 08, 02:34 PM

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jay Maynard > wrote:
>
>> On 2008-03-18, Highflyer > wrote:
>> > The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It
>> > greatly
>> > simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate
>> > standard
>> > for
>> > aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is
>> > why
>> > they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as
>> > two
>> > places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
>> > rules.
>>
>> Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped.
>
> As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above.
>
>> That's one big
>> reason I wound up with a Zodiac XLi. The key is that no part of the
>> aircraft
>> must have manufacturer's instructions prohibiting night or IFR
>> operations,
>> and their equipment must meet the minimum standards of the rules. This
>> means, for example, that the aircraft must not be powered by a Rotax
>> 912ULS
>> or Jabiru 3300, both of which have manufacturer's instructions limiting
>> them
>> to day VFR.

I am not sure of the phrasing on that last part, regarding the engines; but
engine and propeller combinations not certified under parts 34 and 35 (IIRC)
are not supposed to be approved for night IFR.

Several contributors here are much more knowledgeable of the specifics.

Peter

Steve Hix

March 18th 08, 03:28 PM

In article >,
jan olieslagers > wrote:

> Steve Hix schreef:
> > In article >,
> > Jay Maynard > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2008-03-18, Highflyer > wrote:
> >>> The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It
> >>> greatly
> >>> simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard
> >>> for
> >>> aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why
> >>> they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two
> >>> places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
> >>> rules.
> >> Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped.
> >
> > As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above.
>
> This was about plane certification, not about pilot rating.

Nevertheless, whether or not you can legally fly one at night or in IFR
conditions is dependent on pilot rating as well as installed equipment.

Things may be different on your side of the pond, but SLSA applies over
here, and pilot certification affects legal use.

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 18th 08, 06:27 PM

Peter Dohm wrote:

> I am not sure of the phrasing on that last part, regarding the engines; but
> engine and propeller combinations not certified under parts 34 and 35 (IIRC)
> are not supposed to be approved for night IFR.
>
> Several contributors here are much more knowledgeable of the specifics.
>
> Peter
>
>
>

The SLSA version of the 601XL built by AMD can be flown both IFR and VFR
day or night. It all depends on your ticket.

Jay Maynard

March 18th 08, 09:32 PM

On 2008-03-18, Steve Hix > wrote:
> In article >,
> Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> Not true. [LSAs] can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped.
> As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above.

True, and, for that matter, as long as you're not operating under the sport
pilot rules with just your driver's license as medical.

I was referring strictly to the aircraft. As always, there are a lot more
rules that apply to any given operation than just those.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Peter Dohm

March 18th 08, 09:34 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>
>> I am not sure of the phrasing on that last part, regarding the engines;
>> but engine and propeller combinations not certified under parts 34 and 35
>> (IIRC) are not supposed to be approved for night IFR.
>>
>> Several contributors here are much more knowledgeable of the specifics.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>
> The SLSA version of the 601XL built by AMD can be flown both IFR and VFR
> day or night. It all depends on your ticket.

I took a look on their web site, and saw that they are using the Continental
O-200, which appears to be consistant with what I supposed.

Peter

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 18th 08, 09:46 PM

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Peter Dohm wrote:
>>
>>> I am not sure of the phrasing on that last part, regarding the engines;
>>> but engine and propeller combinations not certified under parts 34 and 35
>>> (IIRC) are not supposed to be approved for night IFR.
>>>
>>> Several contributors here are much more knowledgeable of the specifics.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The SLSA version of the 601XL built by AMD can be flown both IFR and VFR
>> day or night. It all depends on your ticket.
>
> I took a look on their web site, and saw that they are using the Continental
> O-200, which appears to be consistant with what I supposed.
>
> Peter
>
>

But I don't think that particular Sensenich propeller is certified.

Jay Maynard

March 18th 08, 09:54 PM

On 2008-03-18, Peter Dohm > wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The SLSA version of the 601XL built by AMD can be flown both IFR and VFR
>> day or night. It all depends on your ticket.
> I took a look on their web site, and saw that they are using the Continental
> O-200, which appears to be consistant with what I supposed.

The certificated version of the O-200, and a certificated Sensenich
composite prop, and TSO'd instruments and avionics. There are only two LSAs
(well, the other one's actually a family of closely related aircraft) that
meet those requirements, the other one being the Tecnam Bravo/Sierra.
There's at least one LSA manufacturer that claims LSAs can't be legally
flown IFR, but I strongly suspect that's because they don't offer one.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Jim Logajan

March 18th 08, 10:24 PM

Jay Maynard > wrote:
> There's at least one LSA manufacturer that claims LSAs
> can't be legally flown IFR, but I strongly suspect that's because they
> don't offer one.

Sport Aircraft Works Inc. may or may not be who you mean, but I've seen
them make that claim in the past. Here's their web page (which looks like
it has been changed since I've last checked, so it doesn't read as absolute
as it used to):

http://www.sportaircraftworks.com/oto%20bin/IFR%20CRUISER.htm

Jay Maynard

March 19th 08, 04:02 AM

On 2008-03-18, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> There's at least one LSA manufacturer that claims LSAs
>> can't be legally flown IFR, but I strongly suspect that's because they
>> don't offer one.
> Sport Aircraft Works Inc. may or may not be who you mean, but I've seen
> them make that claim in the past. Here's their web page (which looks like
> it has been changed since I've last checked, so it doesn't read as absolute
> as it used to):
> http://www.sportaircraftworks.com/oto%20bin/IFR%20CRUISER.htm

Yes, that's the page I was referring to. Even though they've toned it down,
it's still corporate sour grapes because they don't offer an IFR-legal
aircraft.

Meanwhile, the sales manager for AMD commutes an hour or so each way in
various of their aircraft in both VMC and IMC, and has run up about 500
hours of actual in the Zodiac.

Those who say a thing can't be done shouldn't get in the way of those who
are doing it.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

WJRFlyBoy

March 20th 08, 02:29 AM

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 21:05:16 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

>>> Yeah, of course. They do it all the time. There are a few BD5s flying (
>>> that was a typo) and they are most definitely quite dangerous. There are
>>> a few other contraptions flying around that have some serious issues
>>> structuarally, aerodynamically, etc. There's one particular type which
>>> is quite popular in my local group that fortunately never seems to get
>>> finished. The accident reports are littered with these things and I'm
>>> terrified that one of the members is going to ask me to test fly theirs
>>> for them. (think 180 mph VW)
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Then who'se to say the Skywalker, for instance, certified to the hilt, is
>> safe? Aren't we back to Square One? FAA certification means exactly what?A
>> higher possibility of a safe aircraft?
>> --
> I would also add that certification also implies a degree of
> mainatainability (if that is a real word) as well as fitness for a fairly
> wide range of applications.
>
> Basically, Part 23 is a set of generally accepted engineering standards; and
> I agree with Bertie that the RV series appear to be quite capable of being
> certified.

The maintainability makes sense. The fact that a certification is long,
expensive and extremely political makes sense why many don't.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 20th 08, 03:43 AM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 21:05:16 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:
>
>
>>>>Yeah, of course. They do it all the time. There are a few BD5s flying (
>>>>that was a typo) and they are most definitely quite dangerous. There are
>>>>a few other contraptions flying around that have some serious issues
>>>>structuarally, aerodynamically, etc. There's one particular type which
>>>>is quite popular in my local group that fortunately never seems to get
>>>>finished. The accident reports are littered with these things and I'm
>>>>terrified that one of the members is going to ask me to test fly theirs
>>>>for them. (think 180 mph VW)
>>>>
>>>>Bertie
>>>
>>>Then who'se to say the Skywalker, for instance, certified to the hilt, is
>>>safe? Aren't we back to Square One? FAA certification means exactly what?A
>>>higher possibility of a safe aircraft?
>>>--
>>
>>I would also add that certification also implies a degree of
>>mainatainability (if that is a real word) as well as fitness for a fairly
>>wide range of applications.
>>
>>Basically, Part 23 is a set of generally accepted engineering standards; and
>>I agree with Bertie that the RV series appear to be quite capable of being
>>certified.
>
>
> The maintainability makes sense. The fact that a certification is long,
> expensive and extremely political makes sense why many don't.

Educate us.

What part of the certification process is "political"?

Larry Dighera

March 21st 08, 02:58 PM

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:51:51 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to
>build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one of
>the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a warning and a
>call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning on page 3 of this
>document:
>
>http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2008/1-2008-RVator.pdf

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVwebAUDIO Volume 2, Number 11 -- March 21, 2008

-------------------------------------------------------------------
MORE PODCASTS: http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/index.html

>>> Today's Exclusive AVweb Podcast

LANCAIR'S JOE BARTELS OUTLINES THE POSSIBLE DANGERS
OF THE FAA'S PROPOSED "51% RULE" CHANGES FOR HOMEBUILTS
(http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080321&kw=AVwebAudio)
The FAA is proposing changes to the rules governing homebuilt
aircraft, some of which are raising concerns about the future of
this time-honored niche of general aviation. The Experimental
Aircraft Association (http://www.avweb.com/alm?eaa&kw=Podcast) has
stated publicly that it opposes the changes, which would make it
more difficult for homebuilders to comply with the "51%
rule." Earlier this week, Lancair CEO Joe Bartels told the
Bend, Oregon Weekly News that his business could be in danger if
the FAA rule changes are passed. Hear what Bartels told AVweb
about the proposed rule changes and the future of homebuilding in
this AVweb audio feature.

Click here (http://www.avweb.com/podcast/files/2008-03-21.mp3) to
listen. (7.2 MB, 7:54)

WJRFlyBoy

March 21st 08, 05:11 PM

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:51:51 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

> The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to
> build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one of
> the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a warning and a
> call to arms about the issue.

Used and newly built for sale prices may jump considerably then.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 21st 08, 06:55 PM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:51:51 -0000, Jim Logajan >
> wrote:
>
>>The FAA is about to make it a whole hell of a lot harder for people to
>>build safe amateur built aircraft. Richard VanGrunsven, founder of one
>>of the most successful kit aircraft companies, has written up a
>>warning and a call to arms about the issue. You can read it beginning
>>on page 3 of this document:
>>
>>http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2008/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> AVwebAUDIO Volume 2, Number 11 -- March 21, 2008
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> MORE PODCASTS: http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/index.html
>
> >>> Today's Exclusive AVweb Podcast
>
> LANCAIR'S JOE BARTELS OUTLINES THE POSSIBLE DANGERS
> OF THE FAA'S PROPOSED "51% RULE" CHANGES FOR HOMEBUILTS
> (http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080321&kw=AVwebAudio)
> The FAA is proposing changes to the rules governing homebuilt
> aircraft, some of which are raising concerns about the future of
> this time-honored niche of general aviation. The Experimental
> Aircraft Association (http://www.avweb.com/alm?eaa&kw=Podcast) has
> stated publicly that it opposes the changes, which would make it
> more difficult for homebuilders to comply with the "51%
> rule." Earlier this week, Lancair CEO Joe Bartels told the
> Bend, Oregon Weekly News that his business could be in danger if
> the FAA rule changes are passed. Hear what Bartels told AVweb
> about the proposed rule changes and the future of homebuilding in
> this AVweb audio feature.
>

Bull****. it's not difficult at all. You buy a pile of spruce and a pile
of tubing and make it all yourself. Easy. What it's doing is making it
difficult for people to build hairdressers airplanes like Lancairs.

Bertie

Jim Logajan

March 21st 08, 08:46 PM

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> LANCAIR'S JOE BARTELS OUTLINES THE POSSIBLE DANGERS
>> OF THE FAA'S PROPOSED "51% RULE" CHANGES FOR HOMEBUILTS
>> (http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080321&kw=AVwebAudio)
>> The FAA is proposing changes to the rules governing homebuilt
>> aircraft, some of which are raising concerns about the future of
>> this time-honored niche of general aviation. The Experimental
>> Aircraft Association (http://www.avweb.com/alm?eaa&kw=Podcast)
>> has stated publicly that it opposes the changes, which would make
>> it more difficult for homebuilders to comply with the "51%
>> rule." Earlier this week, Lancair CEO Joe Bartels told the
>> Bend, Oregon Weekly News that his business could be in danger if
>> the FAA rule changes are passed. Hear what Bartels told AVweb
>> about the proposed rule changes and the future of homebuilding in
>> this AVweb audio feature.
>>
>
> Bull****. it's not difficult at all. You buy a pile of spruce and a
> pile of tubing and make it all yourself. Easy. What it's doing is
> making it difficult for people to build hairdressers airplanes like
> Lancairs.

I'm sorry, but I think Bartel's main point is spot on - after approving
aircraft for 20+ years using one set of rules, the FAA is basically
proposing a change that would have excluded those same aircraft. It
appears to be an irrational capricious and arbitrary change - unless they
can clearly articulate convincing reasoning and facts to support the
change. They absolutely haven't. No one has. Anecdotes seems to be the
order of the day. That and what I see as a primal urge by some ******s
who thrill to anything that they think "sticks it to the rich guys," and
damn the side effects.

As to "easy" building - well - welding (for example) isn't a natural
skill (it wasn't for me, at least - I was taught some in high school shop
and took a vo-tech course on tig/mig welding a few years later with
dubious results. I'd have to relearn it from scratch since it was decades
ago.) And how many tube and fabric homebuilt designs can fly at 160+
knots with reasonable efficiency? Or aren't we supposed to be allowed to
build such craft? (I'm aware of wood aircraft with good speeds and
efficiencies - but the build times always seem godawful long.)

The thing is, though, is that wood, fabric, and tube aircraft are
technologies that are approaching the 100 year mark. The novelty of
aluminum aircraft technology is getting on in years also. Face it, the
vast majority of homebuilt designs employ technologies and materials
that existed 70 to 100 years ago - and could have been designed that long
ago (and some were I believe). The exception, ironically, appear to
carbon and glass fiber composites. Ironic because kits employing those
technologies are the ones that appear to be at risk. (Of course both
those are also reaching middle age too.)

I don't think it is wise to applaud or encourage the FAA in the changes
they appear to be suggesting (and I believe will be formally accepting
public comment on soon). If the FAA can't be bothered to invest resources
to build cases against violators who lie about who built their aircraft
_now_, in what meaningful way are their proposed changes going to stop
them later?

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 21st 08, 08:53 PM

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> LANCAIR'S JOE BARTELS OUTLINES THE POSSIBLE DANGERS
>>> OF THE FAA'S PROPOSED "51% RULE" CHANGES FOR HOMEBUILTS
>>> (http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080321&kw=AVwebAudio)
>>> The FAA is proposing changes to the rules governing homebuilt
>>> aircraft, some of which are raising concerns about the future of
>>> this time-honored niche of general aviation. The Experimental
>>> Aircraft Association (http://www.avweb.com/alm?eaa&kw=Podcast)
>>> has stated publicly that it opposes the changes, which would
>>> make it more difficult for homebuilders to comply with the
>>> "51% rule." Earlier this week, Lancair CEO Joe Bartels
>>> told the Bend, Oregon Weekly News that his business could be in
>>> danger if the FAA rule changes are passed. Hear what Bartels
>>> told AVweb about the proposed rule changes and the future of
>>> homebuilding in this AVweb audio feature.
>>>
>>
>> Bull****. it's not difficult at all. You buy a pile of spruce and a
>> pile of tubing and make it all yourself. Easy. What it's doing is
>> making it difficult for people to build hairdressers airplanes like
>> Lancairs.
>
> I'm sorry, but I think Bartel's main point is spot on - after
> approving aircraft for 20+ years using one set of rules, the FAA is
> basically proposing a change that would have excluded those same
> aircraft. It appears to be an irrational capricious and arbitrary
> change - unless they can clearly articulate convincing reasoning and
> facts to support the change. They absolutely haven't. No one has.
> Anecdotes seems to be the order of the day. That and what I see as a
> primal urge by some ******s who thrill to anything that they think
> "sticks it to the rich guys," and damn the side effects.
>
> As to "easy" building - well - welding (for example) isn't a natural
> skill (it wasn't for me, at least - I was taught some in high school
> shop and took a vo-tech course on tig/mig welding a few years later
> with dubious results. I'd have to relearn it from scratch since it was
> decades ago.) And how many tube and fabric homebuilt designs can fly
> at 160+ knots with reasonable efficiency? Or aren't we supposed to be
> allowed to build such craft? (I'm aware of wood aircraft with good
> speeds and efficiencies - but the build times always seem godawful
> long.)
>
> The thing is, though, is that wood, fabric, and tube aircraft are
> technologies that are approaching the 100 year mark. The novelty of
> aluminum aircraft technology is getting on in years also. Face it, the
> vast majority of homebuilt designs employ technologies and materials
> that existed 70 to 100 years ago - and could have been designed that
> long ago (and some were I believe). The exception, ironically, appear
> to carbon and glass fiber composites. Ironic because kits employing
> those technologies are the ones that appear to be at risk. (Of course
> both those are also reaching middle age too.)
>
> I don't think it is wise to applaud or encourage the FAA in the
> changes they appear to be suggesting (and I believe will be formally
> accepting public comment on soon). If the FAA can't be bothered to
> invest resources to build cases against violators who lie about who
> built their aircraft _now_, in what meaningful way are their proposed
> changes going to stop them later?
>

I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original
spirit of the rule.

I didn;'t say that welding was easy. I meant that it was easy to avoid
falling afoul of the 51% rule. IOW, don't like what the FAA is
proposing? Build something instead of buying. These airplanes fall
outside the spirit of the original ruling and the aiplans that have been
approve over the last twenty years have been flaunting it..

Bertie

WJRFlyBoy

March 22nd 08, 03:04 AM

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:46:00 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

> I don't think it is wise to applaud or encourage the FAA in the changes
> they appear to be suggesting (and I believe will be formally accepting
> public comment on soon). If the FAA can't be bothered to invest resources
> to build cases against violators who lie about who built their aircraft
> _now_, in what meaningful way are their proposed changes going to stop
> them later?

None which leads to why is the real motivation to do this? I would cast
a sharp eye at the politics (Cessna, etc) who see market share eroding
as they bring out their own overpriced lights.

WJRFlyBoy

March 22nd 08, 03:06 AM

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original
> spirit of the rule.

They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of
the production aircrafters. or they are not.

Which is it?

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 22nd 08, 05:02 AM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the
original
>> spirit of the rule.
>
> They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of
> the production aircrafters. or they are not.
>
> Which is it?
>

They are not.

The amateur experimental was never written for any "market" it was
written so guys could build their own airplanes. That was what George
Bogardus and the EAA pioneers campaigned for. Not for someone to sell
airfix kits.

Like this, for instance.

http://machaircraft.com/default.aspx

I got no problem with anyone building something like this, but if it's
not amateur built, it;'s not amateur built. That was the concession
granted away back in the forties. It was never intended to be a loophole
to get around certification.

Bertie

Bertie

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 24th 08, 01:11 PM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original
>> spirit of the rule.
>
> They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of
> the production aircrafters. or they are not.
>
> Which is it?

They are not. They are looking at the problem that has developed
regarding those that are currently violating the rules that have been in
place for years.

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 24th 08, 01:15 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the
> original
>>> spirit of the rule.
>> They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of
>> the production aircrafters. or they are not.
>>
>> Which is it?
>>
>
> They are not.
>
> The amateur experimental was never written for any "market" it was
> written so guys could build their own airplanes. That was what George
> Bogardus and the EAA pioneers campaigned for. Not for someone to sell
> airfix kits.
>
> Like this, for instance.
>
> http://machaircraft.com/default.aspx
>
>
> I got no problem with anyone building something like this, but if it's
> not amateur built, it;'s not amateur built. That was the concession
> granted away back in the forties. It was never intended to be a loophole
> to get around certification.
>
>
> Bertie
>
>
> Bertie

Places like this are what the FAA will really be looking at.

http://www.aircraftersllc.com/index.htm

Larry Dighera

March 24th 08, 03:50 PM

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:15:54 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote:

>Places like this are what the FAA will really be looking at.
>
>http://www.aircraftersllc.com/index.htm

Can I license my plane if someone else built it?

Before receiving an Airworthiness Certificate, every kitplane
builder is required to certify that he or she built "the major
portion" of the plane "for his or her own education and
recreation". At AirCrafters, we have carefully and correctly
interpreted this rule to mean that the builder must be primarily
involved in the process, but has no obligation to spend more than
50% of the time required. This leaves us in a good position to
help minimize the amount of time a builder must spend working on
the project. Our builders will always be able to certify to the
FAA, correctly and without doubt, that they built the plane.

How does the FAA view the fact that you build kitplanes?

The FAA visits our shop on a regular basis to issue Airworthiness
Certificates and just say "Hi". They tell us regularly that they
appreciate the fact that we are providing a service to the
experimental community, improving safety, and educating builders.
Please call Inspector Lee Mountz at the San Jose FSDO for more
information: 408-291-7681 X102.

How Do I Know If I've Built the Major Portion?

(It has nothing to do with the number of hours required to build!)
The following fabrication & assembly operations are listed on FAA
Form 8000-38 - these are the parts of the aircraft that FAA
Airworthiness Inspectors are concerned with when determining the
major portion status of your amateur-built experimental aircraft.
When you perform any of these operations, you earn "credit"
towards the major portion for having performed these operations
and toward establishing amateur-built status for your plane:

Fuselage Operations
Wing Operations
Flight Control Operations
Empennage Operations
Landing Gear Operations
Cockpit Operations
Propulsion Operations
Canard Operations
Main Rotor Operations
Tail Rotor Operations

Thus, in the case of a standard fixed-wing aircraft, being
involved in performing at least 60 of the applicable 119
Fabrication & Assembly Operations (51%) establishes your plane's
amateur-built status and your eligibility to apply for a
Repairman's Certificate.

Some of those 119 operations are easier than others. Some are less
critical to safety. Some require fewer special tools to complete
expertly. AirCrafters can pick the operations you do for your
particular kit that will guarantee adherence to the 51% rule, and
reduce the amount of time you spend, if that's your goal.

What if you bought the project from a previous owner who never
finished it?

It does not matter how many previous owners a project may have had
- as long as each owner intended to build the aircraft for their
own education or recreation - if you can document or show
documentation of the work that each did, it is as if YOU did the
work!

AirCrafters: Builder Education and Assistance in Custom Aircraft
Construction and Repair
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
Phone 831.722.9141 Fax 831.722.9142

So it would appear that all a wealthy pilot need do to get his kit
plane built for him, is to get some "amateur" builders to construct
various phases of the aircraft, and then sell the partially completed
kit to the next one to perform the next phase of construction, and
finally purchase the completed airplane, and produce the requisite
documentation to receive the Repairman's Certificate.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 24th 08, 05:05 PM

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the
>> original
>>>> spirit of the rule.
>>> They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor
>>> of the production aircrafters. or they are not.
>>>
>>> Which is it?
>>>
>>
>> They are not.
>>
>> The amateur experimental was never written for any "market" it was
>> written so guys could build their own airplanes. That was what George
>> Bogardus and the EAA pioneers campaigned for. Not for someone to sell
>> airfix kits.
>>
>> Like this, for instance.
>>
>> http://machaircraft.com/default.aspx
>>
>>
>> I got no problem with anyone building something like this, but if
>> it's not amateur built, it;'s not amateur built. That was the
>> concession granted away back in the forties. It was never intended to
>> be a loophole to get around certification.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Places like this are what the FAA will really be looking at.
>
> http://www.aircraftersllc.com/index.htm
>

Yeah, I would imagine so. I have had to get help with my project, but i
have so far avoided farming out anything. The way I look at it is, the
reason I'm building the airplane is to learn and that was the original
intent of the rule.

Bertie

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 24th 08, 06:04 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:

> So it would appear that all a wealthy pilot need do to get his kit
> plane built for him, is to get some "amateur" builders to construct
> various phases of the aircraft, and then sell the partially completed
> kit to the next one to perform the next phase of construction, and
> finally purchase the completed airplane, and produce the requisite
> documentation to receive the Repairman's Certificate.

Hence the problem that the FAA is looking at correcting.

Jim Logajan

March 24th 08, 08:20 PM

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> So it would appear that all a wealthy pilot need do to get his kit
>> plane built for him, is to get some "amateur" builders to construct
>> various phases of the aircraft, and then sell the partially completed
>> kit to the next one to perform the next phase of construction, and
>> finally purchase the completed airplane, and produce the requisite
>> documentation to receive the Repairman's Certificate.
>
> Hence the problem that the FAA is looking at correcting.

I can't see how the changes the FAA is proposing to its form 8000-38
would correct that "problem". Specifically, the changes that the FAA is
considering to form 8000-38 don't seem to address the sequence that
Larry mentions at all.

See section 8 of FAA advisory AC 20-139 for details on multiple
builders. It also contains a copy of form 8000-38:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/3209fec2139ccb3f862569af006ab9e9/$FILE/AC20-139.pdf

An example of an already filled out 8000-38:

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/8000-38.htm

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 25th 08, 02:01 PM

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>> So it would appear that all a wealthy pilot need do to get his kit
>>> plane built for him, is to get some "amateur" builders to construct
>>> various phases of the aircraft, and then sell the partially completed
>>> kit to the next one to perform the next phase of construction, and
>>> finally purchase the completed airplane, and produce the requisite
>>> documentation to receive the Repairman's Certificate.
>> Hence the problem that the FAA is looking at correcting.
>
> I can't see how the changes the FAA is proposing to its form 8000-38
> would correct that "problem". Specifically, the changes that the FAA is
> considering to form 8000-38 don't seem to address the sequence that
> Larry mentions at all.
>
> See section 8 of FAA advisory AC 20-139 for details on multiple
> builders. It also contains a copy of form 8000-38:
>
> http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/3209fec2139ccb3f862569af006ab9e9/$FILE/AC20-139.pdf
>
> An example of an already filled out 8000-38:
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/8000-38.htm

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.

Jim Logajan

March 25th 08, 05:19 PM

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?

Larry Dighera

March 25th 08, 06:18 PM

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:19:42 -0000, 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.
>

It's just another of Mr. G's well considered proposals. :-(

>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?

Hey it works for the religious right. :-)

>What if it were an activity you engaged in and someone else was trying to
>make it illegal?

I see this issue as a two fold _opportunity_. By virtue of its
existence, there is obviously an opportunity to legitimize this sort
of commerce, and the FAA is apparently in the mood to change its
dogma, err.. regulations. If the regulations could be changed from
prohibitive to enabling, that would be a win for all involved, IMO.
But those small minded homebuilders, who can only see the status of
their not insignificant accomplishments being eroded, impede the
potential for further FAA concessions to market forces and reduced
aircraft costs.

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 25th 08, 07:12 PM

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

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 25th 08, 07:14 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:19:42 -0000, 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.
>>
>
> It's just another of Mr. G's well considered proposals. :-(
>

Wow, enforce the law that is already on the books instead of creating a
new law. What a novel idea.

Jim Logajan

March 25th 08, 08:20 PM

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

Okay - my misread. Sorry.

Larry Dighera

March 25th 08, 08:57 PM

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.

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 25th 08, 09:31 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:

> 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..."

What part of "operations that are in violation" don't you understand Larry?

>
> 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.

The phrase in the regulations is "for recreation and education." The
spirit of the law is that aircraft certified under the EXP-HB
classification are to be built in a not for profit setting and not as a
way to get around the certification requirements in place for aircraft
manufacturers.

And it is not regardless of the aircrafts airworthiness. It is
specifically because of the aircrafts airworthiness. The power that the
FAA has to issue the certificate comes from the law that also sets the
rules under which an EXP-HB certificate can be issued. If the aircraft
isn't build under those rules it is not airworthy at least as far as
those rules are concerned.

>
>> 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.

You really are a moron. For somebody that seems to have no skill other
than cutting and pasting to USENET it amazes me that you don't realize
that it is specifically this practice that is causing the FAA to look at
changing the regulations.

I know of at least two places where I could of have my kit delivered to
and shown up for a few days and watched while it was being built doing
as much or as little work (including none at all) as I desired. I would
have been able to pose for some photos with the plane under construction
and been able to show that to the DAR along with some bogus paperwork
and I not only would have been able to get the EXP-HB AW certificate I
would be able to get the repairman's certificate as well.

Steve Hix

March 26th 08, 02:46 AM

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:19:42 -0000, 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.
> >
>
> It's just another of Mr. G's well considered proposals. :-(
>
> >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?
>
> Hey it works for the religious right. :-)

And the left.

No need to get excessively picky amongst statists of any stripe.

WJRFlyBoy

March 26th 08, 06:50 AM

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:11:03 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original
>>> spirit of the rule.
>>
>> They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of
>> the production aircrafters. or they are not.
>>
>> Which is it?
>
> They are not. They are looking at the problem that has developed
> regarding those that are currently violating the rules that have been in
> place for years.

Huh?

http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2008/1-2008-RVator.pdf

"On Feb. 15th, in the FAA .... report were indications that procedural
changes would include changes to the criteria for determining
eligibility for airworthiness in the E-AB category. *In other words,
re-defining the level of prefabrication and assembly permissible for
kits.*"

Who benefits from these re-writings, increased cost and complexity? The
kit sellers? Or Cessna?

Peter Dohm

March 26th 08, 02:17 PM

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:11:03 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't see any real change at all. they're going back to the original
>>>> spirit of the rule.
>>>
>>> They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of
>>> the production aircrafters. or they are not.
>>>
>>> Which is it?
>>
>> They are not. They are looking at the problem that has developed
>> regarding those that are currently violating the rules that have been in
>> place for years.
>
> Huh?
>
> http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2008/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>
> "On Feb. 15th, in the FAA .... report were indications that procedural
> changes would include changes to the criteria for determining
> eligibility for airworthiness in the E-AB category. *In other words,
> re-defining the level of prefabrication and assembly permissible for
> kits.*"
>
> Who benefits from these re-writings, increased cost and complexity? The
> kit sellers? Or Cessna?

From my point of view, only two things are certain:
1) This won't address the alleged "problem" of "hired guns" and
2) It will increase the build time.

The most probable side effect will be fewer aircraft built and flown and the
secondary side effect, especially for some of the composites, will be
improper bonding due to slower assembly at critical stages--in other words
DECREASED safety.

So, in the grand scheme of things; we'll be looking at fewer kits
successfully completed, less airport utilization, and eventually less sales
of type certified factory completed aircraft as well. Another genuine
"lose-lose" proposition!

Peter

WJRFlyBoy

March 26th 08, 09:32 PM

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:17:53 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

>>>> They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of
>>>> the production aircrafters. or they are not.
>>>>
>>>> Which is it?
>>>
>>> They are not. They are looking at the problem that has developed
>>> regarding those that are currently violating the rules that have been in
>>> place for years.
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2008/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>>
>> "On Feb. 15th, in the FAA .... report were indications that procedural
>> changes would include changes to the criteria for determining
>> eligibility for airworthiness in the E-AB category. *In other words,
>> re-defining the level of prefabrication and assembly permissible for
>> kits.*"
>>
>> Who benefits from these re-writings, increased cost and complexity? The
>> kit sellers? Or Cessna?
>
> From my point of view, only two things are certain:
> 1) This won't address the alleged "problem" of "hired guns" and
> 2) It will increase the build time.
>
> The most probable side effect will be fewer aircraft built and flown and the
> secondary side effect, especially for some of the composites, will be
> improper bonding due to slower assembly at critical stages--in other words
> DECREASED safety.
>
> So, in the grand scheme of things; we'll be looking at fewer kits
> successfully completed, less airport utilization, and eventually less sales
> of type certified factory completed aircraft as well. Another genuine
> "lose-lose" proposition!
>
> Peter

Why do you think there will be less type certifieds sold, question not a
challenge.

Peter Dohm

March 27th 08, 02:14 AM

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:17:53 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:
>
>>>>> They are significantly re-writing the rules of the market in favor of
>>>>> the production aircrafters. or they are not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>
>>>> They are not. They are looking at the problem that has developed
>>>> regarding those that are currently violating the rules that have been
>>>> in
>>>> place for years.
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>> http://doc.vansaircraft.com/RVator/2008/1-2008-RVator.pdf
>>>
>>> "On Feb. 15th, in the FAA .... report were indications that procedural
>>> changes would include changes to the criteria for determining
>>> eligibility for airworthiness in the E-AB category. *In other words,
>>> re-defining the level of prefabrication and assembly permissible for
>>> kits.*"
>>>
>>> Who benefits from these re-writings, increased cost and complexity? The
>>> kit sellers? Or Cessna?
>>
>> From my point of view, only two things are certain:
>> 1) This won't address the alleged "problem" of "hired guns" and
>> 2) It will increase the build time.
>>
>> The most probable side effect will be fewer aircraft built and flown and
>> the
>> secondary side effect, especially for some of the composites, will be
>> improper bonding due to slower assembly at critical stages--in other
>> words
>> DECREASED safety.
>>
>> So, in the grand scheme of things; we'll be looking at fewer kits
>> successfully completed, less airport utilization, and eventually less
>> sales
>> of type certified factory completed aircraft as well. Another genuine
>> "lose-lose" proposition!
>>
>> Peter
>
> Why do you think there will be less type certifieds sold, question not a
> challenge.

I believe that anything that reduces the size of the overall fleet will have
the effect of also reducing airport utilization. That will have a
"snowball" effect of reducing the number of active airports, and in turn the
utility of individual air travel. Also, the amateur built movement seems to
me to serve as a major focal point for bringing "new blood" into aviation
Therefore, the demand for factory built aircraft would ultimately suffer as
well.

There is an additional fudge factor in that amateur built aircraft are much
more likely to be hangared than other aircraft of similar size, despite
their lower average monetary value. That means that the amateur built
aircraft directly contribute disproportionately to the financial health of
FBOs and small airports generally.

Peter